I was discussing grace and sacraments with an Orthodox via the internet today. I asked him how it was possible for him not to believe that Catholic orders are valid because of the fact that when Catholic priests convert to (mainline) Orthodoxy, they are received through re-vesting, whereas when Episcopalians and Lutheran "priests" convert they are re-ordained.

He said that this is explained because economy is used, and that only re-vesting is needed to infuse grace. He said it was akin to converts being chrismated instead of being baptized. He claims that the further away a group is from Orthodoxy, the less economy is excercised.

He claimed that non-baptized people such a Buddhists are baptized when they enter the Orthodox Churches because they have "no baptism in which to infuse grace." He said that chrismation is "powerful enough" to "make a baptism real" post factum.

He cited the problems in the early Church and the debates about how to receive Arians. I reminded him that the Fathers declared that it was heterodox to re-baptize Arians, because Arian baptisms were valid (to use a Western term). He replied that "the issue isn't if [A]rian baptisms have grace (because all the fathers agreed they don't), the issue was if economy could be used to receive them into the [C]hurch."

So...what say ye? I've never heard this line of reasoning before.

Logos Teen

There wasn't not a complete absolute rule about reception of people into the Church (East and West). The Trinitarian Baptism is a condition si ne qua non for the recognition of the mystery as "valid" or graceful.

The case of the Arians is very confusing sometimes, since the Arian heresy believed Christ not to be God or to be of inferior nature, both Greeks and Latins agree that the Trinitarian formula is corrupted and might not confer grace. Even today, a Mormon Baptism (even if it's done in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit) is declared invalid by Catholics and Orthodox because they do not suscribe to the Church teaching on the Trinitarian Theology. Being more liberal, as we don't know if there's grace or not, the person must be baptized when he enters the Church.

Same about the other Christian sects there's not an absolute rule. In the Roman Church even when they say a Protestant Baptism can be valid, conditional Baptism was the rule (at least before Vatican II). I recall that in our Northern Province of New Mexico, American people of Protestant background who converted to the Catholic Church were all received by Baptism (including Kit Carson).

In the Orthodox communities there are certain instructions from Bishops, but the practice change from place to place. Here Catholics becoming Orthodox are neither Chrismated or Baptized, just unction with chrism or sometimes nothing (the younger ones are Chrismated though). What your friend said about how close to Orthodoxy was the faith of the person is true. Maybe this is because the background of a Latin American Catholic is much closer to Orthodox than the background of a modern Canadian or American Catholic, but I don0t really know.

This is all part of the local people's attitude, in Greece for example, all Catholics are Baptized (in monasteries there are ceremonies for conversion of Latins, with Baptism and purification and so on) because there's antipathy toward Latins.

As you can see, the vinyard of the Lord is quite plural.

Dear Teen,

I am not sure what all you are addressing but I am limiting my response to the above quotes.

1) Not all Orthodox Churches (meaning national/ethnic jurisdictions) receive RC priests by vesting alone.

2) Of course non-baptized people must be baptized (in water in the name of the Trinity) AFAIK this is no different than the Catholic position.

Where, BTW, does "Graceless Heretic" fit in?

Tony

Your Orthodox friend is getting all mixed up, Logos Teen. When one says that a sacrament like Baptism or Holy Orders is "valid", one means that it confers the CHARACTER belonging to that sacrament. Sacramental characters are indelible. A baptized person, for instance, may lose all grace through sin--but he still has the indelible character of the baptized upon his soul.

Thus, to say that our Holy Orders are invalid, because we lack grace, does not make sense. Of course, we know that the Latins-lack-grace stuff is a bunch of malarkey anyway. Say, however, that a man in a state of mortal sin receives ordination. He is without grace, because of his mortal sin. He cannot receive the sacramental grace of ordination, but THE ORDINATION IS STILL VALID BECAUSE IT IMPOSES THE INDELIBLE CHARACTER upon his soul; the character is distinct from the grace. Every Mass that he offers unworthily is valid, and efficacious for devout souls who attend. Of course, if he should then repent and confess, he would be restored to grace and would receive all the sacramental grace pertaining to ordination.

The Arian baptism thing is much more complicated than your friend is making it out to be. It is not clear to me that all Arian baptisms were considered valid by the Church--some were and some weren't, I think. Of course, someone may receive grace from a valid baptism, even if given by a heretic, provided that the person is ignorant of the sin involved in accepting baptism from heretics when it is not necessary. But if the baptism was valid, regardless of anything it would impose the CHARACTER, and it would then be a sacriledge to re-baptize the person.

LatinTrad

The Eastern Church does not have this concept of Priestly ordination conferring an "indelible" mark" or "character" upon the Soul.

Oh. Then how is there something there to "confer grace" upon, when they "re-vest" former Catholic priests? If there is nothing there at all, no grace AND no character, it would seem like those poor guys would need re-ordination.

I don't understand their rationale for saying we don't have "grace" anyway. Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam, and all that, but we've had that discussion here before.

Viva il Papa, e la tradizione Romana.

LatinTrad


"Thou art a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Yes, definitely. This is not what I meant. Out of the context of my entire post, this takes on a separate meaning than what I intended. My apologies.

Well, if baptism doesn't confer grace on heretics, then I figured 1+1=2.

Logos Teen

Oh. Then how is there something there to "confer grace" upon, when they "re-vest" former Catholic priests? If there is nothing there at all, no grace AND no character, it would seem like those poor guys would need re-ordination.

As I understand it, the basic Orthodox perspective would say that you cannot speculate on who does not have grace. You can only say for sure that the Orthodox Church has grace. As for groups outside of the Orthodox Church, you cannot definitively say. A strict position would hold that no group outside of the Orthodox Church has grace. Roman Catholics, for example, would fall under such an opinion. When they are received by Chrismation, or when priests are received only by vesting, it is not that the sacraments they received from their former Church are considered valid, but merely that the Holy Spirit, by virtue of their reception into the Orthodox Church by those means, fills with grace what was an empty form.

As Mor points out, any form of reception short of baptism is already an exercise of economia. How/to what degree this is exercised reflects the variety of opinions in the Orthodox Church.

I think "graceless heretic" is a bit overboard on this one.

Perhaps I read too carefully "He claimed"? To me that indicates disagreement or incredulity.

It should be noted here that the use of economy in recieving a non-Orthodox only through Chrismation without baptizing him was governed by wether the Orthodox form of triple immerison invoking the name of the holy trinity was preserved in the heretical baptism, not wether it was performed by a priest or not- for outside of the church neither priesthood or baptism is reconized. If the form of Baptism were similar to the Orthodox form, then the church through economy could give it content through Chrismation.

Re-baptism was a former topic down there in the O-forum regarding the Jerusalem Patriarchate's reception of re-baptism of converts.

Pope Alexander VI affirmed the validity of Orthodox baptism just after the turn of the sixteenth century, and Rome has periodically confirmed this ruling since then. Nevertheless, rebaptism continued to be practiced on the eastern frontiers of Catholic Europe in Poland and the Balkans - contrary to Roman policy - well into the seventeenth century. In addition, the practice of "conditional baptism," a pastoral option officially intended for cases of genuine doubt about the validity of a person's earlier baptism, was also widely - and erroneously - used in the reception of "dissident" Eastern Christians up to the era of Vatican II itself, and afterwards was practiced occasionally in parts of Eastern Europe. Vatican II, however, was explicit in recognizing both the validity and the efficacy of Orthodox sacraments (Unitatis Redintegratio 15; cf. Ecumenical Directory [1993] 99a).

In the Orthodox Church, a consistent position on the reception of those baptized in other communions is much more difficult, though not impossible, to discern. On the one hand, since the Council in Trullo (692), the canonical collections authoritative in Orthodoxy have included the enactments of third-century North African councils presided over by Cyprian of Carthage, as well as the important late-fourth-century Eastern collection, The Apostolic Canons. Cyprian's position, supported by his contemporary bishop Firmilian of Caesaraea in Cappadocia, was that salvation and grace are not mediated by schismatic communities, so that baptism administered outside the universal apostolic communion is simply invalid as an act of Christian initiation, deprived of the life-giving Spirit (see Cyprian, Epp. 69.7; 71.1; 73.2; 75.17, 22-25). Influential as it was to be, Cyprian and Firmilian both acknowledge that their position on baptism is a relatively new one, forged probably in the 230s to deal with the extraordinary new challenges presented by Christian sectarianism in an age of persecution, but following logically from a clear sense of the Church's boundaries. The Apostolic Canons, included in the larger Apostolic Constitutions and probably representative of Church discipline in Syria during the 380s, identifies sacraments celebrated by "heretics" as illegitimate (can. 45 [46]), although it is not clear in what sense the word "heretic" is being used; the following canon brands it as equally sacrilegious for a bishop or presbyter to rebaptize someone who is already truly baptized, and to recognize the baptism of "someone who has been polluted by the ungodly." Both Cyprian and the Apostolic Canons, in any case, draw a sharp line between the authentic visible Church and every other group which exists outside its boundaries, and accords no value whatever to the rites of those "outside." On the other hand, continuing Eastern practice from at least the fourth century has followed a more nuanced position. This position is reflected in Basil of Caesarea's First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374), addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, whichclaiming to follow the practice of "the ancients" - distinguishes among three types of groups "outside" the Church: heretics, "who differ with regard to faith in God;" schismatics, who are separated from the body of the Church "for some ecclesiastical reasons and differ from other [Christians] on questions that can be resolved;" and "parasynagogues," or dissidents who have formed rival communities simply in opposition to legitimate authority (Ep. 188.1). Only in the case of heretics in the strict sense - those with a different understanding of God, among whom Basil includes Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites - is baptism required for entry into communion with the Church. Concerning the second and third groups, Basil declares that they are still "of the Church," and as such are to be admitted into full communion without baptism. This policy is also reflected in Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which distinguishes between "Severians" (i.e., non-Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, who are to be received by confession of faith; schismatics, who are to be received by chrismation; and heretics, who alone require baptism. Thus, in spite of the solemn rulings of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils against their christological positions, "Severians" and Nestorians are clearly reckoned as still "of the Church," and seem to be understood in Basil's category of "parasynagogues;" their baptisms are thus understood - to use scholastic language - as valid, if perhaps illicit.

The schism between Catholics and Orthodox, unlike the schisms of the Non-Chalcedonian and East Syrian Churches, came into being much later, and only very slowly. Relations between Catholics and Orthodox through the centuries have been, in consequence, highly varied, ranging from full communion, on occasion, well into the late Middle Ages (and, in certain areas, until later still), to a rejection so absolute that it seemed to demand the rebaptism of new communicants. There are, however, in the Orthodox tradition two important synodical rulings which represent the continuation of the policy articulated by Basil, and affirmed by the Synod in Trullo and later Byzantine canonists, rulings which we believe are to be accorded primary importance: those of the Synod of Constantinople in 1484, and of Moscow in 1667. The first ruling, part of a document marking the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate's formal repudiation of the Union of Ferrara-Florence (1439) with the Catholic Church, prescribed that Catholics be received into Orthodox communion by the use of chrism. In the service for the reception of Catholic converts which the Synod published, this anointing is not accompanied by the prayers which characterize the rite of initiation; we find instead formulas of a penitential character. The rite therefore appears to have been understood as part of a process of reconciliation, rather than as a reiteration of post-baptismal chrismation. It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day.

Granted, a vocal minority in the Orthodox Church refuses to accord any validity to Catholic baptism, and thus continues to justify in theory (if less frequently in fact) the (re)baptism of converts from Catholicism. Against this one fact, however, the following considerations should be noted:
1. The Orthodox and Catholic churches both teach the same understanding of baptism. This identical teaching draws on the same sources in Scripture and Tradition, and it has not varied in any significant way from the very earliest witnesses to the faith up to the present day.
2. A central element in this single teaching is the conviction that baptism comes to us as God's gift in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. It is therefore not "of us," but from above. The Church does not simply require the practice of baptism; rather, baptism is the Church's foundation. It establishes the Church, which is also not "of us" but, as the body of Christ quickened by the Spirit, is the presence in this world of the world to come.
3. The fact that our churches share and practice this same faith and teaching requires that we recognize in each other the same baptism and thus also recognize in each other, however "imperfectly," the present reality of the same Church. By Gods gift we are each, in St. Basils words, "of the Church."
4. We find that this mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of baptism, in spite of our divisions, is fully consistent with the perennial teaching of both churches. This teaching has been reaffirmed on many occasions. The formal expression of the recognition of Orthodox baptism has been constant in the teaching of the popes since the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was emphasized again at the Second Vatican Council. The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era. :p
5. The influential theory of "sacramental economy" propounded in the Pedalion commentaries does not represent the tradition and perennial teaching of the Orthodox Church; it is rather an eighteenth-century innovation motivated by the particular historical circumstances operative in those times. It is not the teaching of scripture, of most of the Fathers, or of later Byzantine canonists, nor is it the majority position of the Orthodox churches today.

Regards,
ruel

Well, my post consisted of about 10 "He said"s and "He claimed"s, so I thought it was only naturally to the flow of the post to add "He claimed" right here. But yes, this is about the only thing "He claimed" that I didn't question or disagree with.

Logos Teen

Elexeie:

Axios, Axios, Axios!

Thus, if one was to look at the Orthodox historical perspective ,the baptism of the Pope and that of a Baptist minister are of equal status since neither have a valid priesthood.One can safely say that a Protestant baptism performed by triple immersion could more readily be sanctified by the Church through economy than the sprinkling of the Latins.It is evident that the present day usage in certain quaters of recieving theLatins through Chrismation only is quite late and contrary to the Holy Apostolic and Synodical Canons and the mentality of the Fathers in Relation to the usage of Economy.The Church of Constantinople up until modern times held firmly to the practice of baptizing repentant Latins when they were recieved.One of the accusations of Cardinal Humbert against the Latins in 1054 was,"that as Arians they rebaptize those baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity,and especially the Latins."The opinion of the great cannonist Theodore Balsamon,in 1193, was that all not baptized through triple immerison should be rebaptized thus, including the Latins.In 1215, the same accusation as in 1054 against the Orthodox was made at the 4th Lateran Counsil.In the first half of the 14th century, the great Matthew Blastaris holds the same opinion as Balsamon-that a Baptism without triple emmersion is no Baptism.in 1450, the Byzantine theologian Joseph Bryennios characterizes the Latins as unbaptized. Patriarch Jeremias 2 (16th cen)was of the same opinion,as was Jeremias 3rd,who in 1718 wrote to Peter the Great of Russia that the Latins were not to be recieved just by Chrismation. The Russian Church had already confermed this opinion of the Church in the Synod of Moscow in 1620 under Patriarch Philaret.But in 1666, at the Moscow Synod involving the Old Believers and Patriarch Nicon, the decision was changed; hence the letter of Jeremias 3rd of Constantinople to Peter the Great.In 1756 the tome of the Patriarchs of the east was synodically proclaimed,by which the Latins were to be recieved, as the unbaptized,through Baptism. A petition in 1750 by some Latins to be recieved into Orthodoxy at Galatia became the cause of this Synodical Tome. In 1786, there was a Canonical Decree by Patriarch Procopios which was sent to the former Bishop of Rashka,Germanos, instruction him to recieve the former Byzantine Catholic Narcissuos through "the one true baptism of the Orthodox Church". In 1803, Patriarch Callinicos published a second Canonical Decree upholding the one of 1786.In 1844,two Latin Priest asked to be recieved into the Church of Constantinople.the Synodical decison under Germanos 4th was that economy could Not Be Used.Thus, they were recieved through Baptism and then ordained.In 1875,it was synodically decided to permit by economy the reception of Latins through Chrismation alone.Three years later it was revoked in 1878. Remember that economy can never take the place of Cannons. Poor Sinner Chad

I beg to disagree on this. The Holy Scriptures do not mention what is the proper way of administering Baptism. Rather it is silent!

In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord's grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Moreover, in the Latin Church as I've seen practiced here in my part of the world, baptism is not by sprinkling but by infusion (or pouring)

Again, here I disagree. I have snipped a lot of the post because it does not represent the teachings of the Church Fathers on this. As I've posted before Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo does not recognize the rebaptism of converts. Cyprian of Cathage admits that antiquity do not support his views on rebaptism of converts. Moreover, Re-baptism was resisted by Pope St. Stephen I as against the teaching of St. Cyprian of re-baptizing converts. This was attested by St. Vincent of Lerins in the Commonitorium.

The Carthaginian controversy of repeating Baptism was finally set at rest by a decision of the council of Arles, in 314, which ordered, in its Eighth Canon, that if baptism had been administered, even by heretics, in the name of the Trinity, then it was valid.

Here is a link on the same topic.
http://www.jbburnett.com/auctor/erickson_reception-svtq97.pdf

I think this goes to show that Orthodox who insist on triple immersion as the only "valid" form of baptism are giving a human tradition priority over God's revelation and the Apostolic Faith.

The distinctions between essentials and non-essentials for which the West is notorious suddenly appear pretty necessary. Baptism MUST use water and the Trinitarian formula; it MAY be done by immersion, aspersion, or infusion (pouring). The witness of the Apostolic Fathers indicates as much.

I think that divisions and in-fighting amongst Christians, albeit the result of human failing, can be a grave stumbling block for some. Nevertheless, in the interests of the Truth, I must defend Catholic Baptism. Despite the speculation of *certain* fathers, the Holy Catholic Church has always taught that form, matter, and intention are the only things necessary for a valid baptism.

FORM: the Trinitarian formula.
MATTER: The use of water upon the head of an unbaptized person.
INTENTION: the baptized must have the intention to receive the Sacrament and the minister must have the intention to "do what the Church does" in giving the Sacrament.

In cases where heretics' baptisms were judged invalid, it was because of the absence of one or more of these elements. E.g. the Mormons lack proper *form* because when they say "Father Son & Holy Spirit" they mean something completely different. Certain prot sects lack form because they do not use the Trinitarian formula, etc.

The Catholic Church has never questioned the validity of Orthodox baptisms, despite the heteropraxis of Polish and Lithuanian imperialists. Moreover, it seems that the Orthodox Church, in the decisions of Constantinople and Moscow (1484 and 1667) recognizes the validity of our baptisms. The fact that many "Orthodox" individuals, monasteries, and jurisdictions do not recognize those decisions is troubling.

Peace to all.

LatinTrad

LatinTrad,

The problem is, this is not an Orthodox take on the subject.

For example, if an Orthodox Bishop defrocks a Priest under his juristiction (say, for some offence), that person is not simply lacking permission to celebrate Holy Mysteries - they simply do not have the ability to do such, period. They cannot become vangante clerics, and say "valid, if illicit Masses", for example.

This is a strain of thought which goes to the most ancient witnesses of the Apostolic Faith - for example, St.Ignatios (of Antioch) taught that Divine Liturgies celebrated apart from the Bishop (refering to sects) are not valid.

Logically speaking, how can the Holy Mysteries (which are acts of the Church), be taken into captivity by those who break away from Her?

The simple answer would be, because that "valid form" really did exist, it really did happen - it was, and so it is. In this sense, at the very least, a "mark" of sorts has been left.

By completing the form of the rite (chrismation, or even in some cases, by repentence and profession of the true Faith), the Church is assuming ownership of whatever was done right beforehand. As for the matter of grace infusing the old, dead form, I don't think this is as strange as some make it seem. For example, can anyone claim to tell me what the exact moment is, in a Baptism, when the Holy Spirit regenerates a man? Or at which exact moment during the epiklesis, does the Holy Spirit transform the bread and wine into the Life-giving Body and Blood of the Lord?

It is for this precise reason that this is called "economy" in the first place - it is not the retro-active gracing of a rite, or even the recognition of something having "been there already" as the ecumenists falsely teach - rather, it is the completion (by the infusion of God's grace, His uncreated Life) of what was, of itself (heresies and schisms ignored) a "good start."

It should also be understood, that the use of economy (or exactitude, which in the strictest sense is normative) is up to the discretion of the Church. Typically leniency has been allowed in the cases of converts coming from sects where there is at the very least, the proper form of the sacrament (say, Baptism) and something resembling a proper teaching about it. However, very often even such "qualifying groups" will not have their converts received via leniency, in situations where hostility from that group against the Church has erupted, or where there is a lot of confusion (and/or potential scandal) involved in such an approach. This is due to pastoral considerations - typically to draw a very clearn line between the Church, and the schism the convert is leaving behind.

This is why, for much of the Greek Church's history, reception of Latins was according to exactitude, where as for much of the history of the Slavic Churches (though not totally), a more lenient practice predominated. However, it is interesting to note that in our times, because of a perceived (and I agree with them on this) confusion amongst many people on the nature of the Church, and several other factors, the various "Old Calendar" Churches, and in fact the more conservative/traditional "mainstream Orthodox" (like the Jerusalem Patriarchate) hold "exactitude" as the norm for receiving all converts.

Seraphim

Not quite. It's quite explicit that they're supposed to be done in the Name of the Holy Trinity, and that they involve immersion - the word "baptism" itself refers to "coating", like water overwhelming something.

You won't get any argument from me on this. My problem is not what the Didache says, but how it is understood to justify something as "normal" which is in fact (even in the text itself) "abnormal, and allowed only by circumstances."

There is a reason why baptism by pouring is not preffered in the Didache text - it's the same reason why the Church 'till now will accept it in cases of emergency within the Church (like the Patristic examples cited), but it can never become the norm; it does not clearly, and visibly express the nature of the Holy Mystery itself. How can water poured over a head, symbolize buriel and ressurection the way the genuine, apostolic practice of immersion does?

Even the Pope and the RC catechism recognize this point - that baptism by immersion better symbolizes the content of this sacrament. The Orthodox would only say further, that it is so much so, that to actually choose to make "pouring" a matter of policy is incomprehensible.

I'm curious where St.Cyprian affirms such a thing, since it is quite evident from my reading that so called "re-baptism" is in fact normative in older practice (two big examples that come to mind are the Apostolic Canons and the Ignatian Epistles, both of which tie the validity of Holy Mysteries to their being celebrated in the Church.) What I think can be fairly said, is that more lenient, "economic" practices of later times are developments meant to facilitate new circumstances (mainly, the existance of so many heretics and schisms). However, the underlying principle involved is the same (whether one is baptized outright, or is received into the Church with leniency, in which case the tacit understanding is that the Church is correcting what was wanting...filling what was empty.)

I'd be interested in reading the Canons of Arles - could you provide them for us, or at the very least, the 8th canon?

Seraphim

Alright, Seraphim. If you wanna play hardball, we can play hardball too.

I agree with you on one thing--modern ecumenism as a pastoral approach has blurred the nature of the True Church in people's minds.

I would like to see your documentation from St. Ignatios of Antioch about the defrocked clerics.

Regarding the invalidity of Masses offered by a defrocked cleric--the Catholic position is more rational and more in line with Scripture. We read in the Psalms, "YHWH has sworn and He will not repent; thou art a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek." The Fathers understood this verse as a prefigurement of the New Priesthood established by Christ. Thus, Tradition holds that once a man is ordained to the sacred priesthood, he is configured to Christ forever. Even if he is stripped of the right to excercize his priesthood, he is a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek. Moreover, a lot of "Orthodox" don't seem to hold your view--Filaret in Kiev continues to offer the Holy Mysteries, with a large following, despite his being defrocked.

Regarding the "True Church": we can play hardball there too. Despite the fact that the Catholic Church's current pastoral approach is to emphasize the "ecclesial elements" that have been, as you say, taken and kept by schismatics and other dissidents, here is the authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XI (a great enthusiast for preserving the Eastern Traditions, by the way):

"We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations."[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?"[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]

"Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."[26] "


This is the Faith.

Dar Latin Trad,

Please watch it when you accuse Orthodox of "getting it all mixed up!"

The RC view of the validity of the priesthood among heretics is not more rational or "scriptural."

You are a priest forever - how can that apply to the situation of priests who are excommunicated from the Church? Your scriptural applications here leave much to be desired, Big Guy!

As for the Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarch of Kyiv, he is viewed as noncanonical by BOTH the Orthodox mainstream and Roman Catholic Churches. What does that have to do with anything? He continues to serve liturgies notwithstanding as he does not consider himself to be outside the Church. Again - what in heaven's name are you up to here?

The Orthodox Church (and please don't place that name in quotation marks - it's rude and we don't allow that on this site) believes that valid ordination must also be conjoined to communion with the Church of Christ for a valid and full celebration of the Mysteries/Sacraments.

It is not that Orthodoxy DENIES that the sacraments celebrated in this way are valid, but that it simply cannot say for sure since outside the Church there is only darkness etc.

Such a priest, when he returns to the Church, can be accepted along with his priesthood, but a decision on the part of the Bishops is necessary.

In the time of St Hilary of Poitiers, there was quite a rift with those who said that Christians who apostatized under torture could, by no means, ever be received back into the Church . . .

St Luciperro of Cagliari was one of those - and his cult is limited to Sardinia only as a result.

Even though someone is ordained, he may only serve in communion with the Church and with the permission of his bishop to whom he submits.

Our Lord Himself said to treat those who refuse to submit to the Church as heathen.

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

You are very good at quoting long passages. But the context? How do you say "Huh?" in Latin?

Pius XI was NOT in any way referring to the Orthodox in making that statement - but to Protestantism exclusively.

That Roman Catholicism believes itself to be the true Church - really?

If it weren't for you, who would keep us up to date on all these major theological developments?

Was there a Vatican news release to this effect that we here missed?

I just HATE it when that happens!

Well, at least we can rely on you to keep us all informed here on TRUE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

Perhaps the Administrator and you can work on creating a thread so you can give out Latin language lessons?

That way we'll be able to read the Roman documents in the original language and avoid running off the straight and narrow in future.

I also heard a rumour about the doctrine of the Assumption.

Is that true? Did it happen recently?

What do I know? I'm an Eastern Christian after all.

And I'm forever hanging out with other Eastern Christians.

You are a real blessing to this community!

Alex

I'm sorry, Alex.

I did not say "the Orthodox get it all mixed up," I said that Logos' "Orthodox friend" had gotten it all mixed up.

Regarding the "You are a priest forever" issue: maybe my argument needs amplification, but so does yours and Seraphim's. So far all I have seen are assertions, and rhetorical questions like "how can a priest outside the Church still be a priest?" What is freely asserted is just as freely denied. We can treat them like heathens, yes--but they are still priests in the eyes of God.

When people like Seraphim Reeves come on the forum and start saying that the baptisms and all other sacraments in the Catholic Church are invalid, and that we are cut off from all grace, I think that Catholics should be allowed to respond. Seraphim himself has observed that there is a double standard here, with Orthodox posters being able to spout whatever they want, and westerners silenced and condemned for so much as asking the wrong questions.

In response to his hardball, I reminded him that the Catholic Church has not given up--nor could she give up--her title and claim as the One True Church of Christ. Read Pius XI's words. We don't need crumbs from the likes of S.R.--we have the One Lord, the One Faith, and the One Baptism.

I would also like to reiterate that I think fighting amongst Christians is a great scandal. We must all pray that the Lord can overcome our human weaknesses and pride.

God Bless, Alex. I'm sorry if I am upsetting you again, but this is where I stand right now.

LatinTrad, a sinner

Dr. Roman,
There's no need to be sarcastic. I was speaking to Seraphim Reeves, not to you.

Why does Pius XI refer to Photius, if he was talking about the prots alone?

I'm just trying to speak what I know. If you accept this doctrine, then there's no need to be upset. If you don't, then don't get mad at me for saying it.

LatinTrad

Alex, this is unbelievable! C4C and Seraphim Reeves treat us to some of the most obnoxious bigotry i have ever encountered on the Internet--and you take Latin Trad to task????

What is wrong with this picture?

Are there any Byzantine Catholics out there who don't automatically give a free pass to even the most outrageous Orthodox statements...while jumping all over their Catholic brethren at the slightest provocation?

I used to think I wanted to be Byzantine Catholic. Not any more. Not after encountering this board.

Whew.

ZT

I guess I missed it.
Nope, there it is.

Dear Zoe,

You are not being fair here.

Yes, I let loose a bit on Latin Trad. As he said of me, "we can take it."

Have you read his posts? He has broken some basic rules with respect to the Eastern Churches, especially in a markedly condescending attitude.

I simply called him up on the carpet on it.

I've told him before that if he wants to come out as an ultramontane Catholic and refer to "Orthodox" and quote things out of context concerning "schismatics" et al., then he belongs to: a) another age of the Catholic Church and b) not on this forum.

You know that I'm a Latinized Byzantine. I'm actually rather proud of my versatility in the ritual department.

And I wear a papal coat of arms pin on my lapel.

Despite that, I think some of Latin Trad's attitude toward the East stinks.

And it breaks the rules set out on this forum.

I myself, as you know, was called on the carpet for what I said about Humanae Vitae.

When I realized that I was wrong, I asked forgiveness and I submitted.

This is a forum where we believe that we posters are not infallible (unless someone can show that the Pope has taken up posting here).

My chiding Latin Trad was not as a Latin.

I've chided Orthodox, such as Andrew Rubis, for his view on the Assumption.

When it comes to pointing out when someone is wrong, we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of religion.

I'm sorry that my posts have turned you off Byzantine Catholicism.

I don't know what we'll do without you.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I apologise for any and all offence I've given to Latin Trad and ZoeTheodora here.

But if I'm wrong about being upset about condescension toward Eastern Christianity, please tell me about it.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted things.

Alex

Alex,

I used quotation marks around the word "Orthodox" because I didn't think Seraphim Reeves would consider Filaret to be more than borderline Orthodox.

I don't know why you're perceiving any condescension on my part at all. The word "schismatic" was not brought into this conversation by me, but by our brother S.R. And he used it in reference to you and your sui juris Church just as much as to the heathen West.

I agree with Zoe--if an Orthodox poster is within the "rules" to assert that all our Sacraments are invalid and without grace, then we are within the rules to respond to him. I'm thoroughly sick and tired of having my face beaten with my hands tied behind my back.

Respectfully,
LatinTrad

Alex, I just read your last post--I offer you my own apology and accept yours.

One should NEVER make judgements or be turned off about a particular Faith based on an Internet Forum of all things!!!!!! As you must know, this is where many of our most extreme opinions and judgements are sometimes expressed (often because we don't see the other person and get an instant reaction or see the other's body language)
It is in the parishes that the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics are truly present!

Dear Latin Trad,

O.K., I see where you are coming from.

When our Orthodox friends say what they say about us, they are actually not passing judgement in nastiness, but are sincerely expressing what they actually do believe, and what their respective Churches' do believe, about us.

Some Orthodox Churches are more "ecumenical" than others, but, by and large, either you are Orthodox or you are not.

It was a view that we Catholics also shared throughout history before the days when one could be "pretty close to being Catholic, but not quite fully."

When Orthodox say our Sacraments are without grace, that is because of their theology of the sacraments where one must be in full communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church in order for the sacraments to be "effective."

I too got my back up against the wall when I first came across these views.

But that is the theological playing field.

It is markedly different from the current Catholic climate where we rate other denominations on a scale with those in full communion with Rome at the top and everyone else in descending order, depending on what they believe and "have."

But I'll say that I'm sometimes envious of the way the Orthodox are self-possessed in their own conviction.

I was once in training to become a Benedictine Oblate.

The Benedictines accept Protestants into their Oblate fold. Some of the Anglicans were actually "Higher" than some of the Latin Catholics I came across.

But then there were Evangelical Christians who wanted the many spiritual benefits of following a plan of spiritual life as the Oblates offer, but who balked at other Catholic devotions such as the veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God.

And that was fine until some of the arguments became quite nasty.

And one Lutheran woman actually turned on me because she perceived that I was trying to get her to say the Rosary.

Can you imagine? ME! Trying to force my religious practices on someone else!

O.K., so I still think that earned me brownie points in heaven . . .

(Can you go speak to ZoeTheodora and tell her I'm sorry? I think I can hear her sobbing in her room . . .)

Ultimately, it is a fine line we tread in these discussions.

But we shouldn't automatically assume, and I'm not saying you did, that the Orthodox are being nasty to us when they say what is their heart-felt understanding of the truth.

And we certainly shouldn't pelt them with patristic quotes in an attitude of self-defence.

You've passed another milestone in understanding Orthodox-Catholic misunderstanding.

(Is all that rustling I'm sensing really ZoeTheodora looking for more Kleenex?)

And we have to try and avoid the temptation to triumphalism toward the Orthodox - after all, we're the true Church, where do they get off anyway, and . . . oops!

See? I still have to work on myself . . .

I think the Administrator and Orthoman are the only two who really understand Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism.

I do my best, that's all . . .

Would you like a papal lapel pin?

Alex

Well stated. We need to respect one another�s positions. Respect does not mean agreement on all issues. I think that some of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who participate here make a mistake of expecting Eastern Christians to dialogue using only the theological language of Latin Catholicism. This just doesn�t work. One really needs to be multi-lingual when it comes to theology and accept that some theological concepts just don�t translate well from one theological language to another.

Hmmm�. Ecumenism is witnessing what you believe and respectfully working with others to love them into seeing that what you believe is true (or coming to a common understanding on issues you just define differently). Yes, what passes for ecumenism these days is often not really ecumenism (look at the WCC). But that is a topic for another thread!

Admin, with all due respect, do you think that's been going on here?

In response to Seraphim Reeves' (sincere) references to the Catholic Church as schismatic, heretical, without grace, and without valid Sacraments, I offered my understanding of the Catholic position. I never asked him or Alex or anyone else to use Latin theological language.

Regarding defrocked priests, there was genuine disagreement, and both sides presented their positions.

I think that the level of sensitivity to westerners here might need a little revising. It was we who were being told that our Sacraments are invalid; I took issue with that and became the automatic bad guy. Posts that say the West is without grace do not break "the rules," but posts that say the Catholic Church does have grace because it's the true Church do break "the rules"?

I'm not accusing Alex, Seraphim, the Admin, or anyone else of malice; I'm just asking for the leeway to defend my own Church when it comes under attack. Otherwise, like I said before, it's like being hit in the face over and over again while one's hands are tied behind one's back.

It should be noted once again that divisions amongst Christians are a scandal, but that there can be no easy solution without tackling the hard questions.

LatinTrad

You asked a question and got an answer.I dont get all bent out of shape about it. And yes I would love to continue to debate but I feel that it is all in vain.Poor Sinner Chad

But Alex, how does that justify it? When Bob Jones III says the Pope is the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Bablyon, he is also "not passing judgment in nastiness" but "sincerely expressing what [he] actually [does] believe about us." I know this for a fact--I live in the Bible Belt, and I know folks from BJU who share Dr. Jones's views. (One very nice chap told me in all sincerity, "I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm just anti-Catholicism." Whew--well, that's a relief. :p )

I submit that sincerity does not justify bigotry. One can be sincerely bigoted. But it's still bigotry.

You say Latin Trad has expressed condescension toward Eastern Christianity. I haven't read all the posts in question, so I have no idea whether this charge has any validity or not. But even if it does, ISTM that "expressing condescension" is pretty minor compared with claiming that Catholic Sacraments are graceless. That goes a lot farther than mere condescension.

Yet you make excuses for Seraphim. Why? Isn't sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander? Shouldn't you also be trying to understand where LT is coming from? Just hypothetically--if you're going to make all sorts of excuses for SR, then why not for LT, too? It's only fair, right?

Seraphim represents the extreme position held by Old Calendarists. (If I'm not mistaken, he's a member of ROCOR.) You're justifying that? On a putatively Catholic board? I'm tempted to ask, "Whose side are you on, anyway?"

Well, nuff said! Love ya...truly...am just a bit flummoxed, thass all.

I sure wish there were a Byzantine Catholic board where it was safe to be Catholic.

Blessings,

ZT

Chad, I would love to continue discussing things with you and the other Orthodox, and with all the BC's (who are really the homeboys here). What I object to is that one side is allowed to argue their points, but when the other side tries to do the same, they are accused of breaking some set of "rules". That is not your fault, and it is not Seraphim's fault. Seraphim took my side on this issue, on another thread.

With love,

LatinTrad

The last time this subject came up, Orthodox Christians came to the defense of the Latins and called attention to the fact that there is a double standard on this forum, with Orthodox being allowed to say whatever they want, but Latins being accused of breaking the rules and being polemical, etc., etc., when they are only stating their position the same as anyone else. It has been presented that the Orthodox who are stating the rigorous school position within Orthodoxy aren't being nasty, but just presenting their position and what they believe. From what I can see, the Latins are doing the exact same thing, and not being nasty either. What happens is that they repeatedly get jumped on, and even more than one Orthodox Christian has noticed this, and even called attention to it.

By the way, I think that Alex made a sincere effort to be kind and understanding in his last post. I applaud him for this. When I see someone being soft hearted like that, it softens my heart as well, and reminds me to keep working on trying to be a better Christian, pleasing to our Lord.

Maybe I'm missing the logic here, ZT. How does the strict Orthodox position on the "validity" of groups outside of the Orthodox Church, which, if I'm not mistaken, is based on solid ecclesiological positions, the teachings of the Church Fathers, Scriptural principles, etc., compare with what I'll call the "Bob Jones crowd"? The latter is certainly bigotry, but how is the former equivalent to that?

Although I'm the orginator of this thread, I've been pretty uninvolved in posting. Rather, I've been reading everyone's (quite vociferous) opinions.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm probably the least biased person here. I am a mainline Protestant learning about Catholicism and Orthodoxy and about East and West. Everyone else I've run across in this thread is either Catholic or Orthodox.

I thoroughly agree with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox here that there is a double standard. I feel that LatinTrad's treatment has been of the most unChristian sort. It seems that, out of all the Christians here, the ByzCaths are the only ones who don't see the double standard.

It also seems to me that the discussion was going quite well between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Honesty, attempt to dialogue, and cordiality were all present and active. Then came the Byzantine Catholics (Alex, djs, etc.) who, IMHO, stirred up most of the consternation we see here now. I am NOT trying to point fingers; perhaps it has nothing to do with religious affiliation. Maybe Alex and djs both have brown hair and that's the link? Whatever it is, LatinTrad and ZoeTheodora have been treated disrespectfully and the honest dialogue that was taking place has now been hijacked.

I have never been offeded by the Orthodox position on Catholicism. Find me one of my posts that even hints at my thinking Catholics are being treated unfairly by the Orthodox position. The Orthodox Churches are entitled to their opinions, and I have great respect for them. However, the Roman Catholic Church is also entitled to its opinion, which, ISTM, is much the same attitude towards the Orthodox as vice versa, regardless of what some people may say about the "current attitude" of Catholicism is towards non-Catholic groups. Lastly, the Byzantine Catholic Church is entitled to its official position, if it has one that *officially* differs from that of the Roman Church and the rest of the Catholic Communion.

In short, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinions. Lots of opinions on something that is Truth simply means most everybody is going to be dead wrong while a few might be right. But it's useless and thoroughly unChristians to attack people. LatinTrad and ZoeTheodora have clearly been the victims of prejudice. This should be appallingly clear to anyone with an IQ greater than that of an orangutan.

I regret starting this thread. Perhaps after my post has been censored it can be closed.

Logos Teen

Thank you LT for your post and support. I was hoping that we could talk. I think we could learn alot from each other.I guess that I will continue to post and take flack.I just cant mince words because I dont think that I could convey the right meaning.
I think that we have come to eaches understanding of economy.But that doesent mean that we have to like it.

Dear LT,

Maybe we should not close the thread, but make the title more accurate by removing the question mark?

Or maybe make it more charitable, by removing the word heretic, as well as the question mark?

LOL--you're right! At least the Bob Jones crowd do not endorse Donatism, right? Whereas the "strict Orthodox" position presented in this thread has "Donatism" written all over it.

Seriously, though--can you tell me which Scripture verse or patristic source says that we Catholics have graceless Sacraments? Chapter and verse, please. I'd be very interested in seeing the citation.

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. Dunstan and LT, I agree--Alex's last post was charitable indeed.

Dear TotIL:

For the record, I have blond hair. And it is getting extremely blond as I age.

I agree with you, that "the discussion was going quite well between the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Honesty, attempt to dialogue, and cordiality were all present and active." Presumably, then you will also agree that the comments being made were not properly characterized by ZT as "obnoxious bigotry"

What I then found over the top, however, was ZT's rhetorical question and comment that carried the implication that not only Alex, but all BC's are somehow suspect. I was unable to resist the temptation of making a quip, pointing out the irony of such obnoxous bigotry appearing in a post criticizing obnoxious bigotry.

I accorded her post due respect. And whatever the opinions of your favorite primates, I am bemused to be accused of prejudice. Please, help me out with this: exaclty what I am supposedly prejudiced against?

ZT the Holy Scriptures that are refered to are John 3:23
Romans 6:3-5
1st Peter 3:21
Acts 8:36-39
In these passages the element of water-lots of water-is very important.In the The Shepard of Hermas written around 100ad in the ninth parable it says "They had need to come up through the water,so that they might be made alive;for they could not otherwise enter into the Kingdom of God."
Also in the Didache as it was posted earler the prescribed traditional form is in living water and it is understood that would intail immersion.
poor sinner chad

Well, for the record, I do not regard either Alex or BCs as suspect. And I concede that "bigotry" was perhaps a strong word. :p

But I remain frankly stunned by the BC attitude that so lightly accepts the EO charge that our Catholic sacraments are "graceless." And I remain equally staggered by the barrage of criticism aimed at LatinTrad, in marked contrast to the free pass given Seraphim Reeves. (For the record, I know Seraphim from other boards...there's a history there. In my experience, this gentleman loses no opportunity to bash Catholicism up one side and down the other. That may not technically qualify as bigotry, but if not, I wish you'd supply a better word for it! )

Blessings,

ZT

Dear ZT,

Donatism, according to the Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition, preached "that only those living a blameless life belonged in the church, and, further, that the validity of any sacrament depended upon the personal worthiness of the priest administering it". According to a webpage of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, "Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid."

In either definition, it is clear that Donatism deals with the moral character of the minister of a sacrament, and how that moral character affects the validity of a sacrament. I hope you can see from this that the Orthodox position does not, as you claim, have "Donatism written all over it". The Orthodox make no judgements on the moral character of Roman Catholic clerics. Many Orthodox that I know, myself included, have great respect and admiration for some Roman Catholic clerics that we are familiar with. And the Orthodox Church formally condemns the idea of Donatism. Clearly, Donatism is not at play in the "strict Orthodox" perspective.

I'm not inclined to think that you were deliberately misrepresenting the "strict Orthodox" view because I myself was not familiar with what exactly Donatism taught (I had the basic idea, I think), and had to look it up, and so I can understand how a misunderstanding could have occurred. But I hope it is clear that to call the Orthodox view "Donatist" is very inaccurate.

As for "chapter and verse" citations of the Scriptures and the Fathers confirming that Catholic sacraments are graceless, such a request strikes me as Protestant. :p

Seriously, though, I don't think the issue is that simple. You cannot just cite one or two things to confirm or deny something. This is theology, not proof-texting. Seraphim Reeves, if I'm not mistaken, has explained the idea of how the strict Orthodox view would have it that Catholic sacraments are graceless someplace on this forum, maybe even in this thread. Perhaps he or someone else can direct you to that, or he can summarise the idea. Elsewhere, Anastasios has summarised this idea; if you haven't already seen it, private message me and I will direct you to the appropriate link.

Simply put (and I hope I am getting this right), the Orthodox Church is conscious of the fact that it is the true Church, the Body of Christ, and maintains that communion with it is necessary in order to be in the true Church, the Body of Christ. If a group is not in communion with the Orthodox Church (the true Church, the Body of Christ), then the "validity" of the sacraments of such a group is doubtful at best. The same goes for a group that once was in communion with it, but broke away (such would be the case with the Roman Catholic Church, according to the Orthodox). You will find Orthodox who deny the validity of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church; you will find other Orthodox who will think that Catholic sacraments are valid (I am one of these). But the Orthodox Church officially does not dogmatise on this; we know where the true faith and the true sacraments definitely are, so we don't need to worry so much about where they might be: if you are in any doubt, you're welcome to join us!

At any rate, I think an in-depth look at this issue, either privately through the study of certain books, or even a thread discussing this notion, could be helpful.

I think such might also serve to show that the Roman Catholic Church has evolved in its view of the Orthodox. The RCC now says that the Orthodox are a sister Church, although separated, that the Orthodox Churches are true particular Churches, although not having the fulness of the faith by being in communion with Rome (I hope I got that right, it's a pretty short summary of the Catholic view, and it's been a while since I studied the pertinent documents). Provided that the quoted texts have not been doctored to support the views of the website owner*, I think

http://www.romancatholicism.org/schism.html

is instructive in that it shows that the official Roman Catholic position, as enunciated by various Popes over the centuries, has been awfully similar in some ways to the way the strict Orthodox perspective views Rome and others outside it. It seems that the current view pushed by the Vatican is relatively young compared to the older view represented here, and so (if all this is true) I don't think it's fair for Catholics to think that the Orthodox are out to get them, and that they are being mean for not recognising their sacraments; once upon a time, Catholics said similar things about the Orthodox. Then the Catholics changed. But hasn't it always been like that? :p

God bless you.

*I don't agree with everything the website owner says, obviously. But I think the page I linked to is interesting, if not doctored up.

Hi! Thanks for the response. But....where do either these Scriptures or these patristic passages state plainly and unequivocally that baptism must be by immersion?

I must be missing it.

For that matter, where does any ecumenical council state that baptism must be by immersion? Where does any ecumenical council state that baptism is graceless when it is done by aspersion? Where does any Early Father state this--plainly and unequivocally, I mean? (References to coming up out of the water are ambiguous at best. I'm looking for a clear patristic statement to the effect of: "Baptism by aspersion is graceless." I think you'll be hard-pressed to find such a statement! )

Your use of Scripture and patristics reminds me of the way my Baptist friends handle the Bible. They say baptism must be by immersion of adults, because the Bible doesn't explicitly mention aspersion of infants. Forgive me, but this sort of thing seems a rather fundamentalistic way of approaching the Bible and the Fathers. And as such, it's very problematic.

Personally, I think immersion conveys the symbolism of baptism better than aspersion does. But water is water, and that plus the Trinitarian formula constitute the "esse" of baptism. Jesus commanded us to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but He never said how far under the water the baptisand has to go. IOW, I think He allowed some flexibility in praxis. Else He would have been more explicit about the immersion-vs.-aspersion thing!

In sum: I think you are splitting hairs. This is precisely the sort of thing that convinces me I could never be EO. There are many other things as well, but this "dead letter" approach to Scripture and Tradition is certainly one significant factor.

From time to tome, an Orthodox person comes onto a Catholic board and tells us Papists we are all hell-bound heretics because our priests don't have beards and our Communion Bread is flat. I just think that's silly. Matthew 25: 31-46 says nothing about beards.

It doesn't say anything about having to baptize by immersion either.

Blessings,

ZT

Ah yes ZT,
And this is where Tradition steps in and our views are different.But did you not ask for the Scriptual referance and how the Orthodox looked at it?So how is this remind you of a Baptist?And I thought that this is an orthodox in communion with Rome board?Im far from anti Catholic.I think that you might be interested in the views of the Byzantine Catholics and how close to Orthodoxy they are.Ive seen many Latin Catholics storm out of Byzantine Churches.And this is where we can return to the true meaning of ecumenism and look to the future with hope.20 years ago did the laiety have this dialog between the churches?No, and now we do.I believe that all these problems will be solved from the ground up. Poor sinner Chad

Now, allow me to let you know where I stand with regard to the Eastern Churches:

-I am notorious among my Latin friends for singing Melkite chant all the time.

-When I attend the Divine Liturgy, you wouldn't be able to distinguish me from any of the native Byzantines, since I cross myself the right way and sing everything.

-I have defended Eastern traditions, in arguments against other traditional westerners--things like married priests, non-kneeling on Sundays, lack of silence during the DL, etc. I do not think that they are "superior" to western practices as such, but that they are what is right for the East.


Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is unfair to accuse me of dissing Eastern Christianity.


Alex noted that Chad and Seraphim Reeves are stating what they sincerely believe, and are not trying to be nasty. I agree. Seraphim and Chad both seem to be devout Christians who desire to discuss the Faith. I would ask that the same benefit-of-the-doubt be extended to us westerners, however. On another thread, Seraphim himself supported me in this request. It is impossible for two parties to discuss issues if one party's views are considered "out-of-bounds" or "against the rules".

Regarding Donatism: Mor Ephrem is correct about the nature of Donatism; nevertheless re-baptism was the hallmark of the Donatists in North Africa during the 4th century. It seems that the "strict" Orthodox here are advocating re-baptism, despite the Canons of their Churches (Constantinople and Moscow, which have already been brought up). Thus,I can see what ZT was referring to when she said "Donatism".


I do not think that bigotry is necessarily involved here. Of course, I do think that error IS involved.

God bless all.

LatinTrad

The council of Arles[France; A.D. 314] contains this canon on rebaptism:

Canon 8. Regarding the Africans, who use their own law to rebaptize, it has been enacted that if anybody comes to the church from heresy, let them ask him the Creed: and if they see that he has been baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the hand be imposed upon him only, that he may receive the Holy Spirit. But if the person questioned does not answer with this Trinity, let him be baptized. [Mansi 2: 472]

As for St. Cyprian[A.D. 200-258] and Pope St. Stephen[A.D. 254-257]

Cyprian�s position, that those baptized by heretics who then came into the Church needed to be baptized again, was very common in the Eastern and African Church at the time. Pope Stephen held to the traditional practice of the Church which considered these baptisms as being valid and the imposition of hands should be used for acceptance into the Church. Cyprian recognized that his own position on rebaptism was not based on the traditional practice of the Church, yet believed that the custom of the Church was simply wrong and should yield to reason. Cyprian and Stephen were going opposite directions on a one way street. Pope Stephen resisted Cyprian and stood fast on the practice of the Church stating, �nihil innovetur�-- �let there be no innovation!�.

The council of Carthage [A.D. 256], under Cyprian, ruled in favor of �rebaptism� and wrote to Pope Stephen:

... we force no one, nor do we lay down a law, since each prelate has the right of his free will in the administration of the Church, and will give an account of his actions to the Lord. [Ep. 72. CSEL 3: 778]

Cyprian believed that the council of Carthage had every right to rule as it did in this matter. He also believed that he had no right to enforce his view on any other bishop and vice versa. St. Jerome spoke on the matter:

Blessed Cyprian... condemning the baptism of heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and the twenty-second from Blessed Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually the very same bishops, who had laid down with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returning to the ancient custom, published a new decree. [Contra Lucif., 23. PL 23: 186]

Ultimately, and in the end, Pope Stephen and the Tradition of the Church prevailed over St. Cyprian and his council of 256. The Latin Father Vincent of Lerins sums it up this way:

Agrippinus [Cyprian] of venerable memory, who was once bishop of Carthage, first of all mortals, against the divine Canon, against the rule of the Universal Church, against the opinion of all his fellow priests, against the custom and institutions of the elders, thought that rebaptism ought to be practiced... Then Pope Stephen of blessed memory, bishop of the Apostolic See, together indeed with the rest of his colleagues but more than the others, resisted, thinking it fitting, I think, that he exceed all the rest as much by the devotion of his faith as he did by the authority of his place. What happened in the end? What force was there in the African Council or decree? By God�s gift, none. Everything, as if a dream or a story, was trampled upon as if useless, abolished, superseded... [PL 50: 645-6]


Regards,
ruel

ps...[St. Augustine wrote:] 'as there is in the catholic church something that is not catholic [i.e., unholiness in some of its members], so there may be something that is catholic outside the catholic church.' [Ep. 185.38, 185.42] . . .

Dear ZT,

I don't think it's a matter of the Orthodox saying that immersion is the only valid form of baptism *plainly and unequivocally*. It is clear enough that the Orthodox allow infusion (pouring) and even aspersion in emergency circumstances. The issue is that what is essentially a method of baptism that is used in emergency circumstances has become the norm. Elsewhere, it was explained that, for the Orthodox, the symbolism of the sacrament is considered to be very important. So when there is not an emergency situation, that symbolism should be preserved in the rite as a matter of obligation; it should be considered the normal, default way of baptising, and the concessions allowed in an emergency shouldn't compromise that.

This is much a better website:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

Thanks for the link. I actually saw this a couple of days ago. While it explains Unam Sanctam a bit, there are still some questions remaining. Even so, if the quotes on the other site are accurate, and have not been edited for polemical purposes, one can ignore Unam Sanctam and there still seem to be enough quotes from various papal documents and statements to raise questions, at least for me.

Would you cite the relevant canons from Constantinople and Moscow, LT? I think I saw the Moscow one briefly alluded to on the first page of this thread, but there was information in the same post to counter that. Perhaps you have another Moscow canon in mind? I'd like to see them.

Dear Latin Trad and Zoe Theodora,

I see where you are both coming from and I appreciate your feelings!

Again, the Administrator (I thank him for his kind words to me - he hasn't said anything nice about me for a while, you know . . . ) is quite right in affirming the correctness of what I said . . . that doesn't sound right, does it?

In other, less egotistical, wording, what we consider to be an attack on our Churches by Orthodox here is not necessarily so.

Yes, the Orthodox do believe we are graceless heretics - for the most part.

But even this isn't an emphatic statement (did you two know that Teen Logo, for all his holier-than-thou Catholicism is still a Methodist? Can you speak to him and get him to become a Catholic finally? He is a walking danger to Catholic-Protestant relations otherwise . . . ).

The Orthodox say they simply don't know what exists in terms of grace beyond the true Church which, in this context, is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

This doesn't prevent them from venerating Catholic saints etc. on an individual basis.

But, in their theological books, there is no such thing as an "almost Orthodox." One either is or isn't.

In terms of vocabulary, the Administrator was saying more than, as you know, using Latin theological terminology.

A priori's are also involved and there are marked differences in Eastern and Western ecclesiologies.

If I do cut slack to Orthodox, it is because they are my brothers and sisters in so very many ways and because I like to think I've come to understand them better over the years.

When I react sharply to my Latin brothers and sisters in this respect, it is because I feel protective of them because I do love them.

There was a time in my life, I am sad to say, when I only referred to Orthodox as "schismatics."

I don't mind it when they refer to me as a "heretic."

And ultimately, there really are aspects to my thinking that could be deemed heretical by Catholic standards.

So no one's perfect!

But I think Teen of the Incarnate Logos should become your number one conversion project.

He's really getting on my nerves in that respect and I think you should get on his case immediately

Alex

I apologize for the "bigotry" references. Sometimes I get a tad carried away.

However, I would agree with LatinTrad in characterizing Seraphim's views as "in error."

More later...am at work now.

Please pray for this sinner who also prays for you....

ZT

djs,

I don't have much time, so I'll have to get back to you.

Alex,

I must say that, although we disagree on many things, your ability to humble yourself and to, in the end, make others feel at ease, is a much-coveted and God-given trait.

And I'm working on the conversion thing!

Logos Teen

Pax Christi!
I am looking for the relevant canons from the 1484 Synod of Constantinople and the 1667? Synod of Moscow but I couldn't find one on-line. But i found some interesting links:

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html#2_bottom

Thanks, elexeie, for the links.

Zoe,

It is a matter of immemorial tradition, that the normative form of Baptism is via immersion - the very symbolism St.Paul attributes to the rite (which indicates the grace being given to the one being baptized) is only illustrated properly by immersion.

Respectfully, I have to say that C4C is confusing two issues - the issue of "baptismal form", and the issue of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church.

If by "validity" we simply mean proper form, than this exists outside of the Orthodox Church. The issue with typical RC practice in this regard, however, is the normative use of what ordinarily should only be used in emergencies (baptism by pouring.) If you ask any Orthodox Priest, he'll tell you it's possible to baptize by pouring - however, this is only to be done with people who are so frail that immersing them may cause them serious harm, OR in some similar emergency (say a person is dying, and there is a scarcity of water.) This is why the Didache, for example, lists it below immersion.

Please keep in mind, it is not the Orthodox who are doing anything weird here by insisting that "immerssion" is normative - the Latins continued to do this well after the schism as well.

The issue of sacraments being valid in the sense that they give grace, is something different. Strictly speaking, this is something which only the Church can do - the Church is the theandric Body of Christ (Christ, with human beings grafted in as members, members of Him), and thus it makes little sense (from an Orthodox view) to insist that those who are not joined to Christ can somehow possess His Priesthood, offer His oblation, Baptize sinners, etc. This is the fundamental issue in regard to RC baptisms - though the use of pouring as the norm is lamentable, it "can" be corrected, as far as I know, by reception into the Orthodox Church.

What can I say? My view on these things is informed by the teachings of the Church. That's like me assuming you're a bigot for believing your Pope is the Vicar of Christ and ruler of all Christians.

I do agree with this - I think Trad should be cut some slack here. I also can understand if there's a bit of emotion involved here (so long as it doesn't get out of control) - though I do not know why anyone needs me, or Orthodox Christians, to endorse their sacraments if they believe they're in the right. It really shouldn't bother you.

I'm not going to get into my "affiliations", because it's been my experience that many RC apologists unwittingly try to pit various elements in the Orthodox world against each other for a polemical end. I'm simply stating what I've gained from my teachers in Christ, and in particular from the Canons, Fathers, and Sacred Scriptures.

My position is only "extreme" in so far as it's unpopular, and probably bad politics. But it is the nectar of the Fathers, as unpalatable a medicine as that can be at times.

As far as desiring "Scriptural proof" for the invalidity of RC sacraments, this is misguided to some extent (though the principles involved are in Scripture - I just don't think they particularly point to the RCC, but to heretics and schisms in general) - it's like me asking you to justify from the Scriptures why Pope Leo XIII ruled that Anglican orders are "invalid."

Seraphim

LatinTrad,

If this is a meaningful similarity, then I suppose one can argue that superficially, the universally celibate Latin clergy bears a resemblence to that of certain gnostic sects. Of course, the motives are for the most part, very different. Thus, so much for apparently incriminating "similarities."

Seraphim

First: Clerical celibacy is a discipline, not an article of faith. As such, it can be lifted at any time.

Second: It is not "universal" even in the Latin Rite. There are a number of married Latin Rite priests, most of them converts from High Church Anglicanism or Lutheranism who were granted special dispensation via the "pastoral provision" to be ordained as Catholic priests without renouncing their spouses.

So your analogy fails.

Praying for your return to the One Church Jesus founded upon Peter the Rock....

In the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima,

ZT

Elexeie,

What I find most interesting about this, is that this is fundamentally an argument (the Papal - St.Cyprian dispute) over praxis, not dogmatic content.

While later on when the Latins numerated their sacraments, they listed them as "seven" (a number of convienience, btw., which some Orthodox have adopted in later ages - though most realize this was due to latin influence, and is not entirely correct, since Orthodoxy has no strict distinction between "sacrament" and "sacramentals" the way Catholicism has), early on (and this is still Orthodox practice), the supposedly seperate mysteries of "Baptism" and "Chrismation" were part of the same rite; there was no such thing as baptizing someone, and leaving them unconfirmed (save it was some extreme emergency.)

Thus, the "seperatness" of Baptism and Chrismation in the Orthodox tradition is highly questionable. In fact, unlike the Latins, Chrismation, or variants on this (the mystery of confirming in the Holy Spirit) historically is repeated in the case of apostates (such as those who defected to Islam, but then repented and came back to the Church.) This represents a very different appraisal of this Mystery from the RC one.

Thus, when I read the above canon, I do not see the fundamental difference in faith regarding the Church and Her Mysteries, but a decidedly different approach to the "how" of receiving converts.

I think it's anachronistic for modern Latins, to read their medieval theology into the canons of Arles - particularly when they insist upon the imposition of hands upon heretics who undoubtedly (by modern RC standards) had a "valid priesthood" and "valid confirmations" (in Sacred Scripture, the imposition of hands is the root of the Mystery of Confirmation/Chrismation.)

I also think it's anachronistic to believe that the canon of Arles (which obviously was never accepted universally, since Orthodox practice in this regard never held it's line) is some proof that the Latins at this point were endorsing schismatic/heretical baptisms as being "grace bearing", or the same as those of the Church of Christ. Please keep in mind, that even after the Latins developed a whole system of "characters" and such for certain sacraments, it's only relatively recently that they would admit that non-Catholic mysteries in fact "bear grace." For example, the RC savant Thomas Aquinas (in his famous Summa) teaches that while heretical baptisms can be "valid" (leave a character), they're not grace bearing without the "Catholic faith" (they do not remit sins). Ditto for heretical Masses - they may be "valid", but no one can benefit from them outside of the RCC.

Thus, there is not this huge variance between the traditional Orthodox view, and even the view of the RCC in the post-schism Middle Ages (simply that the Orthodox Church never dogmatized on the notion of there being a "character" - particularly when there were earlier Fathers who referred to heretical baptisms and blessings as "pollutions" and "maledictions"!) - rather the big difference is between the Orthodox view and the very modern position of the now very "ecumenical" RCC.

Which, btw., is the Orthodox position to this day - the decision whether exactitude or leniency will be practiced in the reception of converts from heresy and schism, is at the discretion of Bishops (or their consent as brothers in their Synod). However, what is not different (in the genuine Orthodox confession) is the fundamental belief that when heretics are received into the Church, they receive the grace of re-birth through that reception; whether it be by leniency, or by exactitude.

There is no crime committed in baptizing a heretic, save only in the eyes of those for whom this was not their accepted custom (or what came to be their accepted custom.) However, the more open (Orthodox) view predominated in areas beyond papal control.

Of course, this is a decidedly Latin take on the matter. What's interesting is the accepted Orthodox view, allows for the leniency the Latins had come to view as normative custom - in fact, at various times in the Eastern Churches, this was the norm as well. A lot of the decision ("re"baptize or not) had to do with discretionary issues - like whether the sect converts were leaving was being aggressive towards the Church, or there somehow needed to be no confusion about the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. This is why, for example, the Old Calendarists insist now on reception by full baptism, chrismation, profession, etc. (due to the confusion that the ecumenical movement has caused.)

Yes, "may". Who knows. "May" as in maybe, maybe not. It's certainly not the operative position of the Orthodox Church (which included the Latins at one time) to assume that outside of the Church genuine Mysteries and "Churchly" acts can be found.

Seraphim

Thank you for the slack, Seraphim.

You are right about the second point too--the fact that those who reject the Petrine primacy also reject the Church's Sacraments does not "bother" me except in so far as it provokes a sense of concern about my separated brothers' salvation.

Your stance on our Sacraments does seem to contradict that taken by your Patriarchs in previous centuries, however. Oh well. I trust you are in good faith, and pray for your enlightenment.

LatinTrad

P.S. Hey Logos Teen this is for you too. You've probably seen it before:

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; . . . since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

No, it is evidenced by your very "rebuttal" - read what I said; there is a superficial similarity between normative Latin practice in this regard, and that of gnostic sectarians of old; but the substance of the two is almost totally disimilar. That was my point, and thanks for re-iterating it for me.

In the same way, the guilt by "association" (in this case, again, superficial similarity) between Donatist positions and that of Orthodox Christianity on heretical/schismatical sacraments, is equally false. Confounding the two would be as unfair as insisting on a meaningful correlation between long standing RC practice on celibacy (which up until recently, was most certainly universal, and to this day is normative), and gnostic practices.

Seraphim

One further question, Seraphim....

If the notion that Catholic Baptism is "graceless" is indeed the teaching of the Orthodox Church...then how come most EO jurisdictions reject this notion? How come even the Patriarch of Moscow (not known for his ecumenical bonhomie) accepts the validity of Catholic sacraments (including baptism)?

You say that your study of Scripture, Canons, and Fathers has led you to the conclusion that Catholic sacraments are graceless...including Catholic baptism.

You represent this as Orthodox Church teaching.

Yet many other Orthodox accept the validity -- the "graced-ness" -- of Catholic sacraments. Even most of those EO jurisdictions that rechrismate converts from Catholicism accept RC baptism as valid. Very few rebaptize converts who have previously undergone Trinitarian baptiosm...right?

So, if all those jurisdictions and hierachs disagree with you...then who is right? Presumably these hierarchs are as familiar with Scripture, Canons, and Fathers as you are. Perhaps even more familiar.

So, how do you know who's right and who's wrong? How do you know you're right and they're wrong? How do you know what really is the authentic Orthodox teaching on the status of Catholic baptism? If other jurisdictions hold a different view from yours, then how do you know that's not Orthodox Church teaching? "By what authority" can you assert that your view = definitive Orthodox Teaching, seeing as most of the Orthodox world seems to reject your view?

(Of course, this underscores one of the fundamental flaws in Orthodox ecclesiology: the lack of a central authority for settling disputed theological questions. Without such an authoritative arbiter [i.e., a living Magisterium], it becomes impossible to determine precisely what "official" Orhodox teaching really is on any given point. The result is hopeless confusion, with different groups claiming that their conflicting views all represent Orthodox teaching.)

Blessings,

ZT

LatinTrad

I'd like you to supply some evidence to that effect. What has gone back and forth, is whether or not Latins and Protestants are to be received by exactitude, or economy (leniency) - and I've explained why this is, in other parts of the thread. But for your benefit, I will explain it again (briefly.)

Strictly speaking, the outward form of the rite of Baptism (at least the actual use of water, the threefold immersion/pouring, the words invoked, if not the whole Baptismal rite itself) in the RCC and most of the mainline Protestant denominations (the "classical Reformation" so to speak) are valid. What is fundamentally problematic about these baptisms, however, is that they are ministered outside of the Church. Since the Orthodox Church is the Body of Christ, the continuation of Pentecost unto the present day, the Church cannot accept these baptisms of themselves as "true, Orthodox Baptisms" - that is to say, as Grace bearing Mysteries.

The understanding is then, if someone has been "validly" (as I've described it) baptized in a non-Orthodox church, this baptism is given content by their reception into the Orthodox Church. Whether this be by Chrismation/laying on of hands (as was common in the western Church, as the 8th canon of Arles demonstrates), or the varying Eastern practice/ancient practice of going through the full Baptismal rite, the grace of re-birth and joining to the Body of Christ is bestowed by the Orthodox Church.

If such "baptisms" were understood to effect salvation or join one to the Body of Christ, then frankly there is no point in people becoming Orthodox at all. Interestingly, this has been, in effect, the result of the RCC's teaching at Vatican II; the Vatican accepts the Orthodox Churches as true Churches (with various minor issues interupting their communion with Rome), and see's no reason in the order of salvation for them to "go Catholic." Thus, the Vatican has been known to even turn away Orthodox groups who for whatever reason wanted to become Uniates of some kind. This is precisely why "Uniatism" has been officially rejected by the Vatican.

In essence, the documents of Vatican II teach that Orthodox Churches, dogmatically differing Churches, are part of the same "body" that the RCC is. This is a novelty even in the RC tradition, which is why you have your various "Lefebvre" movements and the like.

OTOH, the Orthodox Church has not changed it's mind on this topic.

Seraphim

Evidence that he does? Alexi's resistance to the RCC has little to do with religious conviction, but with the power of the MP in Russia; it's well known that the Moscow Patriarchate has officially been involved in the ecumenical movement, among other problems. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if people from the MP have signed one of the many heretical "joint statements" on this subject.

Not RC sacraments in particular, but any that are celebrated outside of the Orthodox Church. This is not a "Catholicism" issue, but fundamentally, an ecclessiological one pertaining to Orthodox Christianity itself.

No, it is Orthodox teaching; I don't think my sentimental nature would ever have desired or concocted such "hard sayings". As it is, I have family and friends firmly entrenched in non-Orthodox religions and "Christianities" - these words of the Fathers and sacred Canons give me no pleasure or peace of mind in their regard.

Yet, unless they've imbibed heresy (which is very likely, due to the scandal ecumenism has caused, and the confusion it's caused in most of "world Orthodoxy"), their reception of such converts is "economic" - that is to say, with the understanding that by coming to Orthodoxy, their previous "baptism" is being validated and made Life bearing. You're still refusing to pay heed to the Orthodox understanding of receiving converts via "economy" - such reception does not require any acknowledgement of the "validity" of RC, Protestant, or whatever "baptisms."

If you want to persist in misconstruing the practice of economy (which, btw., is what the Council of Arles is talking about - otherwise, the laying on of hands makes little sense) in Orthodox Christianity, that is your perogative - but if so, do not persist in the pretense of trying to engage Orthodoxy "as it is" (nor bother speaking to me any further, since I am not here to debate sophistries.)

Since the subject cannot be avoided, I may as well be frank with you on this - it's the opinion of some of the greatest confessors of the modern age (the Catacomb Saints of Russia, the many zealot confessors of Greece persecuted by the Greek State and the EP, the late Bl. Fr. Seraphim of Platina, and the newly glorified St.Philaret), that we are living through perhaps the worst dogmatic crisis the Orthodox world has ever seen. In short, it is probably quite easy to find an "Orthodox" bishop or priest who will support practically anything.

This is the poison of the wolves in our midst - they've given fodder to RC vultures to pick our flocks, by pointing to the scandal they've created. It's lamentable, but the above line of questioning (I don't blame you for it, you didn't cause this problem in our midst, obviously) shows the damage they've done.

The position of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers, and Canons is that the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit is a phenomena distinct to the Church - how could it be otherwise? For if it existed elsewhere, that'd be "the Church" too!

However, the problem is that there are anathemas on the books, that have long attained a "pan-Orthodox"/Oecumenical (the true ecumenism) nature, condemning the various errors in doctrine and praxis that have come to be accepted by the Pope and those who submit to him. Thus, there is no question from an Orthodox p.o.v., that Catholicism represents a different religion from Orthodoxy, and it's quite obvious that there is no communion between the RCC and the Orthodox Church.

Given this, it's not a difficult question; the problem is not the clarity of the Orthodox teaching, but the deliberate muddying of these waters by ecumenistic "Orthodox".

It's not "hopeless confusion" because we still believe in the existance of "objective truth", and the grace of the Holy Spirit to lead contrite hearts towards it. As Bl.Justin of Serbia (a modern Orthodox confessor who broke communion with the Serbian Patriarch precisely because of his ecumenistic entanglements) observed, Catholicism substitutes humanistic certainties for the grace of Christ. Thus, instead of bold confidence in the "Living Christ", Who really is the Head of the Church, they assert a "visible head" (not of divine origin, but human creation); in this, there is at the very least a latent agnosticism, if not practical atheism, involved here.

Thus, while it's quite evident that the Fathers understood the "power" of Oecumenical Councils to be found in the gathering of Bishops and the guidance of the Holy Spirit Who would descend upon such a gathering, Catholicism has to create a legalistic certainty that ultimatly rests authority not in God, but a man. Thus, the RCC effectively teaches that Ecumenical Councils are not what the Fathers understood them to be, but rather extensions of the Papal office (basically, just a consultation to the Pope, so he can round-aboutly issue an "ex cathedra" statement.)

If you want to know the true Faith, it's not a terribly esoteric excercise - this is precisely why the heretics of old were so blameworthy. If the truth were really this esoteric (even keeping in mind the workings of grace!) then all ecclessiastical condemnations of heresy are puffs of smoke, since no one would fall under them.

Seraphim

http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm

Here is a scholarly document on this problem:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html
and a letter from Bishop Tihkon: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Here is a nice passage from the latter:

Well, I'll give you one thing, Seraphim. You're consistent. And you're certainly honest and frank.

"RC vultures" -- I love that. Can't help wondering what sort of brou-ha-ha would erupt on this board if we Catholics referred to EOs who steal Catholic sheep as "EO vultures."

I give you credit (big time!) for admitting that there's a dogmatic crisis in pan-Orthodoxy. Many of my Internet Orthodox buds seem unwilling to concede that there are any problems in the Orthodox world at all. (And then they accuse us of triumphalism -- sheesh!)

But ISTM you still haven't answered my central question. I asked how you know that you're right whereas most of the Orthodox world is wrong. You deplored most of the Orthodox world as "ecumenistic" and stated that this was serious error. But you didn't show me how you know for sure that You're Right and They're Wrong.

Doesn't it take a certain amount of hubris -- not to mention chutzpah -- to assert that most Orthodox hierarchs -- the majority -- are wrong whereas you're right?

Blessings in the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima,

ZT

"Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." -- St. Ambrose, 4th century

OK, here's another question for those who claim that the Grace of Christ does not exist outside the Orthodox communion:

We have wonderful Pentecostal neighbors. They would do anything for the folks hereabouts. They are loving, caring people. They also love the Lord Jesus fervently. I don't agree with their theology, obviously; I think they are in error on some key points. But I recognize that they are Chalcedonian Trinitarian Christians...and as such, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, recently the wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Biopsies showed the cancer. After being "prayed over" by her church community, she went in for another biopsy as a prelude to surgery. The cancer was completely gone -- without a trace. The doctors cannot explain it.

OK. If those outside the Orthodox communion do not have the grace of Christ, then how was this woman cured? By the devil? (Be careful about that one, my friends--remember what Jesus said about those who attribute His work to Beezlebub!)

Eagerly awaiting your answer

ZT

P.S. djs -- The RCC says the Orthodox are our "sister churches" in potentia, not in full reality. Y'all are sisters who've left the family -- but we'll take you back anytime. We'll even bend over backward to accommodate you.

Djs,

Which is definately an essential change in approach to this subject. According to Trent, "confessional faith" (understood as Catholicism) is necessary for salvation. This is why, previous to Trent, the RC Doctor Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa Theologica that while there are "valid" sacraments outside of the Pope's communion, they do not benefit their users (for they lack this faith.) There are some delicacies to that appraisal that pre-Vatican II Popes had picked up on, but in essence that stands in contradiction to the acceptance, in total, that the modern Vatican has taken towards the fruitfulness of Orthodox Mysteries.

What is equally interesting, is that the RCC is stating unequivocally that Orthodox confessions are fully valid. This is interesting, since according to traditional RC teaching, "confession" is a sacrament which not only requires a "valid priest", but also for that priest to have proper juristictional authority over the one who is confessing before him. The only conclusions I can draw from this assessment are...

a) The Pope is ignoring the RCC's teaching on Papal juristiction (which is understood to filter down through the episcopate, who in turn gives faculties to their diocesan priests to hear confessions)

b) The Pope has tacitly "granted" juristiction to the Orthodox Church, not only over their own flocks, but according to the new ecumenical norms, to even hear the confessions of RC's if it's for their "spiritual benefit" (as found in the 1983 code of canon law)?

If it's (b) (which I suspect, since that's the one thing that has always remained substantially in tact with the RCC no matter what - the Pope's authority), then essentially the Vatican has truly recognized the Orthodox Churches as "sister churches" in the full sense, with the qualification that there is simply a minor "interuption in relations" (lack of full communion, whatever this means) between them and the Vatican.

Given that this is the case, it's quite clear that the RCC at least officially regards the salvation of Orthodox Christians, as Orthodox Christians, a non-issue. However, there is a duplicity involved in this, since the RCC still contains all sorts of people trying to "convert" Orthodox Christians (in America alone there are lots of apostolates like this - "Catholic Answers" comes to mind, along with several well known "apologetical" authors.)

This is why many Orthodox skeptically remark (and rightly so) that what really matters to the RCC, above all, is adminstrative unity...which basically means, whether anyone cares to admit it or not, "submission to the Holy See." That the Church's unity can be boiled down to so secondary an issue, is one of the big problems Orthodox have always had with Catholicism - excercises of authority and political unity first, the true Faith and it's content second. Very troubling, since it is the latter which is salvific, not the former.

At best, a misleading statement, but not a surprising one since ecumenists tend to speak in ways which will technically (if strained) please everyone.

For example, the above can be understood in a heretical manner, so as to say that Orthodoxy has "always recognized" the RCC as a grace filled (essentially Orthodox) institution - which it's not, particularly not the latter (which the former depends upon), since there are several dogmatical and praxis errors which have been condemned by the Orthodox Church.

However, if one wants to strain on gnats, the above could also be understood to mean simply the recognition that the "valid forms" (by in large) still essentially remain in Roman Catholicism (though arguably the Mass is problematic, since it lacks the proper epiklesis that it once had, but was dropped in the time leading up to the schism - though I know others would argue the traditional RC Mass does have an implicit, "ascending epiklesis"). As such, these forms can be corrected, by simply receiving converts via economy. Thus, the vessels are "valid", but the content is of the Church.

And that's acceptable. It has been, for the most part, the Slavic practice. At varying times, it was also the Greek practice. However, this leniency is highly dependent upon the perceived needs of the time. This is why "traditonal" Orthodox, in our confused age, insist on reception by Baptism. Even the Jerusalem Patriarchate (which for it's own reasons keeps communion with some, to put it nicely, very comprimised figures) insists on this practice, as do the monastic communities on Mt.Athos.

Again, a vaguely stated remark, and probably intentionally so (since the MP itself, for all of it's lapses, still has in Russia proper plenty of priests and monastics who are horrified at ecumenism), to placate those who would react badly to a more openly heterodox statement.

The formal laying on of hands in succession, historically and forensically, exists in the RCC. I don't doubt that. What is left out of this statement, however, is the fact that while those forms may exist, they exist as a branch cut off from the life giving sap of it's parent tree.

If this branch was not in fact severed, that would be tantamount to saying there is no real schism between the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, and the RCC. That is sheer fantasy, but it what heretical ecumenists (the heresy of ecumenism having been anathematized by ROCOR, an anathema accepted by all of the Old Calendarist Churches) often imply, or when they think no one is looking who'd object, outright say.

This is very poorly stated. What was recognized is that all of the proper external qualities of the Priesthood and Apostolic Succession existed with the Uniates so received. Because those forms were there, there was no absolute need to impose them. However, they received the grace of the Holy Mother Church, upon conversion.

It is precisely out of pastoral consideration (to avoid unnecessarily disrupting the feelings of the flocks being received, and creating scandal in their midst) that such economy exists at all. The Church of Christ is a hospital for sinners, thus doesn't expect them to have the firmness right off the bat that She hopes they'll grow into with maturity.

Seraphim

And who might they be?

ZT,

Perhaps a better example is the one regularly used by Bishop Tihkon on the Indiana List: Why is Constantine, who was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian heretic, regarded as a saint of the Orhtodox Church?

Your comment on the use of "Sister Churches" is not supported by Ut Unum Sint, Dominus Iesus, or the letter from Ratzinger on the use of the phrase. But maybe it reflects some particular teaching of the "RCC" rather than the CC. (You make a funny scramble of 2nd and 3rd persons in your PS, what's that all about?)

Zoe,

That was rather harsh, I admit, and also not properly qualified. For that, I apologize.

However, there is still within Catholicism (despite the emphasis on our "sister church" status, and the RC statement that within Orthodox Christianity there is the presence of undoubtedly fruitful mysteries) a large number of people who desire to "convert" the Orthodox.

My problem with this is not that it exists, of itself. I suppose if another religion thinks it's true, it's not surprising to see them work towards the conversion of others to their creed. Being perplexed by such a thing, is like being scandalized that snakes bite, or hawks eat cute little bunnies. Where my problem lies, is in the duplicity involved in such an enterprise - while on one hand the RCC positions itself as a "friend", it underhandedly (both officially and unofficially) acts against the Orthodox Church.

One quick example that comes to mind, is the situation of the Old Calendarists in Greece. Without going into the whole history of this situation, I'll simply say that the Old Calendarists are simply those Orthodox who refused to go along with a renovationist change in the Greek "State" Church which had been explicitly anathematized by three separate Pan-Orthodox Synods, which had in fact been chaired by the very Ecumenical Patriarchate that later introduced this innovation.

However, it is with this EP, that the RCC is "bargaining." And it is not a well kept secret, that the RCC has encouraged the Greek State's/EP/Greek State church's persecution and marginalization of the Old Calendarist. Even honest men within the State church, like the late Fr.John Romanides, recognized this phenomenon (since he as well was shown the same treatment, due to his traditional, authentically Orthodox views on ecclessiological questions).

The same is true of the situation in Slavic lands, whether it be Russia or Ukraine. While it is true that there have been for sometime been Uniates in the Ukraine (though this itself is an ugly example of past RC aggression against the Orthodox), geographically Kiev is not a centre for them. However, historically it is a centre for Holy Orthodoxy, at one time even being an Archepiscopal See of great importance. So why then is so great an expense being made, by the Uniates (with foreign, Latin raised funds) to build an Archepiscopal Cathredral for themselves in Kiev (particularly when there is no native flock to justify such an undertaking)? Easy - because the Ukranian Uniates still pass themselves off as the inheritors of the ancient Ukranian Orthodox heritage, and this is a very conspicuous missionary endevour. And things like this are definatly not happening without any sort of Vatican involvement.

Like I said, if these things were just "happening", as is, I wouldn't find them surprising. But it is that they happen, via the left hand, while the right is extended as a friendly handshake, that I find incredibly disingenous.

True Orthodox, otoh, make no pretense about where it see's the standing of relations between the Orthodox Church and Catholicism. If the worldly Orthodox involved in ecumenism do not "missionize" the west, it is only because of their utter indifference, not an ecclessiological stand either way.

Their attitude may be partly ignorance, partly ostrich-ism (head in the sand, not wanting to see things for how they are.) Trust me, I'm already familiar with this, as I speak more often with these folks than I do Latins or Protestants. It is also the leaders of these people who, in the past century, have the blood of martyrs all over their hands (the acts of the Sergianist MP against the Catacomb Church in Russia, which still goes on to this day, and the persecution of Old Calendarists in Greece at the encouragement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archbishop of Athens.)

I think there might be two questions here - on one hand the "how" as in "how is it possible for you to know" (which is an interesting, if peculiarly RC apologetical question), the other being the "how" as in simply "by what means do you know."

The latter I can answer fairly easily - the canons of Ecumenical and important Pan-Orthodox Councils (or even Local Councils whose canons were eventually accepted abroad), the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, Sacred Scriptures, and most directly, my teachers in Christ; a teaching they have not failed to clarify and justify in my sight (the way the Apostles did before the unbelieving Jews.) This is not a tremendously esoteric subject - and it is because of this, that the ecumenistic leaders of "world Orthodoxy" often go out of their way to viciously persecute and slander those who reject their innovations and lapses. A good example of this - why heirarchs like the EP often do and say things which make it appear that the "branch theory" is acceptable within an Orthodox paradigm (it is not), leaving everyone (including the poor RC's themselves) believe that they regard RC sacraments as true, grace bearing mysteries not at all substantially different from those of the Orthodox Church, they will go out of their way to denounce Old Calendarist Greeks and Catacomb believers in Russia as being "graceless schismatics", and have little compulsion about sicking the state authorities onto them (or in the case of Russia, even utilizing ultra-nationalist, neo-fascist groups to vandalize true Orthodox Churches and physically abuse and even murder Orthodox Priests, monastics, and laymen.)

In short, they're scared of the true confessors. And they should be, as their father the devil is terrified of the grace of Christ which is inevitably going to put his wicked ways to an end.

Well, I've already explained the "how" in this respect. If you want the details, that's another matter entirely, which I'm not sure is even worthwhile getting into with you. If you were truly inclined to hear the good news of Jesus Christ, taught unsullied and unadultered only in the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ, then it'd be worthwhile to get into these matters to dispel any confusion. But as it stands, you're interest is merely academic - which as far as I can see, is not only not worthwhile, but might even do you more harm than good.

"Athanasius vs. the world", "Maximos against the world"...it's happened before. Though I'm certainly no St. Athanasius or St.Maximos - but then again, most of their followers and brothers were not of their caliber either. Truth, as Bl.Augustine taught, is not democratic.

Now getting to the other dimension of the "how" question...that is more difficult to get into. However, I would say this is a problem that not only has to be dealt with by Orthodox, but by Roman Catholics as well. Indeed, it's the problem of human knowledge, and certitude, underlined by modern, post-enlightenment philosophers. That is to say can we really know anything?

That's an interesting discussion, and I have my own thoughts on that, but it's not really necessary to this thread - since I think it's safe to assume that both you and I accept (off the bat) that there is not only such a thing as "truth", but that it can also be apprehend by human beings. Bringing up Orthodoxy's lack of an "infallible Papal heirarch" doesn't make it an issue that plagues us any more than you, since all you've done is trade the Holy Canons and Scriptures for a man - yet one could still wonder what moves you to accept his authority?

Seraphim

Highly dependent? The "Russian" practice has been rather invariant over time. Far from a case-by-case decision for strictness or economy, there is a solid tradition that forms the basis for prescribing current practices. And as the MP document notes, the very fact that these practices are traditional - perhaps morphing to Traditional - provides insight as to the way Orthodox actually views other churches. Good to refer to "traditional " groups in quotes, as they are not following tradition.

I am a fan of Bishop Tihkon's writing for a number of reasons - one of which is its uniform excellence; he doesn't write poorly. Your spin on what he might mean, really misses his crucial point.

One thing that became apparent when I read this post, is that you've misunderstood (not entirely hard to understand, btw., but it's still a misunderstanding) what is meant by there only being grace in the Orthodox Church.

Grace, as understood by the Church, is truly an example of God's energetic involvement. Unlike traditional Latin theologians (at least since the Middle Ages), who explicitly taught that grace is a "created relationship" between God and His creatures (which exists in two forms - actual "graces", which are "helps" as it were, and "sanctifying grace" which is envisioned as a static "state" which justified souls possess - a "habit" of the soul, a categorization drawn from the post-Cordova Aristotelianism which took over theological schools in the RCC during the Middle Ages), Orthodoxy believes that "grace" is really God Himself having contact with His creatures. How? Because we believe that God's energies are uncreated (like His Essence, which is unknowable) outpourings of His Essence, real revelations of Himself and the way He takes up a presence and acts in the creation.

Because the universe continues to exist, and people are gently led towards the Truth (without ever violating their free will), it's obvious that this grace is at work in the world, among all peoples, and in all things. It can still be rightly called "grace", because it is unmerited benvolence on His part.

However, this interaction with God is "exoteric" - to use an analogy, it works from "without" rather than "within."

Yet the promise of Christ to His Saints is that the "living waters" He gives, will start gushing out from within - that they will in truth, become Temples of the Most High.

This "ability" to render men Temples of God, and for them to corporately exist as a singular Temple of the Lord, is something unique to the Church of Christ. Thus, why Orthodoxy can only recognize as "grace bearing" Her own Mysteries, and why Orthodox speak of there being "no grace" outside of the Church. It is a statement referring to this manifestation of the grace of the Holy Spirit, not to God's activity in the creation in general. For as our Lord Jesus Christ taught in St.Matthew's Gospel, God makes it rain and shine on both the wicked, and upon the upright.

I don't doubt it. Honestly, I've met plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc., whose gentleness and kindness puts me and many of my co-religionists to shame.

This is an interesting affirmation on your part. You regard them as "brothers" (seemingly on a C.S. Lewish style "mere Christianity" basis), yet they'd undoubtedly regard Priesthood as a vain imposition of men upon sinners who need Jesus (even though the Fathers taught that there are no Holy Mysteries, and thus no salvation, without them! St.John Chrysostomos' words on the Priesthood in his famous "Six Books on the Priesthood" comes to mind right away), are indifferent to the supremely Priestly mystery of Baptism, and would be forced to say that you're at least materially an idolater for regarding the bread and wine of the Eucharist, after being consecrated, as the precious Body and Blood of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Simply put, I fail to see how such a person is a "brother" of any sort, at least in a way significantly different from the notion of mankind's brotherhood as a whole.

That's very good news. Cancer is a horrible disease.

a) I can hardly say whether this was a miracle or not. There are still natural capacities in man, including the psychic realm, which are not fully understood by traditional medical sciences. "Positive thinking" for example, has been shown to do amazing things. What is entirely clear, is that we, physically, are fallen beings, who probably have natural capacities which are incredibly hampered by the reign of the devil, sin, and mortality.

b) Assuming this was an act of special intervention, it has no effect on Orthodoxy's ecclessiological position. I would only say that what may be infrequent outside of the Church (miracles), happens quite a bit within Her.

Taking what happened to your Pentecostal friend as proof of anything in the ecclessiological realm (while unnecessary) would not only have implications for me, but also for you (since such a view would make the Mystery of anointing the sick, which requires a Priest, a pointless formality - since apparently it can be done without Priests, if that is how one wants to understand your friend's case.)

As an aside, I think this line of discussion deserves a special aside - mention of Orthodox Christianity's incredibly "personalist" attitude towards causation. All effects have causes - and as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, there is no such thing as impersonal causes. While our darkened vision cannot always perceive this in every circumstance, no Orthodox Christian with any understanding believes things happen without personal causation.

Thus, all things, ultimatly will find their cause in God Himself, His Angels and Saints, men, or sadly, the devils. This is why we should take care not to grumble at our lot - for in doing so, we are passing an implicit judgement upon God for letting it come upon us. In the Holy Scriptures, we are given a cosmology which is incredibly "personalist" - the Apocalypse describes even physical aspects of our universe having spiritual personalities behind them (Angels in particular.) Also, the Prophet Isaiah describes places of desolation and despair as being literally filled with demons. This is why Orthodox Priests excorcize waters for Baptism, and why places are blessed for spiritual excercises - to drive out any demons which may be present. If you're interested, here is a link to a very good article pertaining to this subject...

http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/orthodox-doctrine-causality.html

Thus, even when a physician does his work in this life by applying medicines to us, and our illness goes away, we should not only thank him, but supremely thank God, Who gives health (for the truth is, if it was really our time to die, there is nothing a doctor could do for us.)

Seraphim

Djs,

Yes, rather invariant. It's had exceptions. However, you'll note I was talking about Greek practice, which certainly has been more varying.

I'm aware it's not a "case by case" issue with the Russians, at least prior to relatively recently (since most of the Russian true confessors now, undoubtedly receive converts by exactitude). Indeed, generally this is not a "case by case" basis - usually a Synod will take a position for an indefinate period of time. I've said that reception via economy is pretty normal in Russian practice, so you're not informing me of anything controversial.

I quote "traditional", because in truth there are not two different types of Orthodoxy - I only use the phrase diplomatically, since in truth there is only Orthodoxy, and heterodoxy.

As for implications regarding the significance of traditional Russian practice, this is precisely the reason why this practice is inappropriate (in the judgement of at least two Russian groups I can think of at the top of my head) in our current context - because theological innovators (diplomatic speak for heretics) are drawing incorrect conclusions from this practice.

If you can produce a statement from a nominally "Orthodox" heirarch that the mysteries of the RCC and other schisms are undoubtedly grace bearing mysteries, all you've accomplished is the solicitation of a statement of heresy.

Canon XLVI.

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

Canon XLVII.

Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

Put another way - ask even the most liberal "Orthodox" Priest, whether a defrocked Priest can either truly celebrate the Divine Liturgy (put more precisely, call down the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine become the Precious Body and Blood of the Saviour), or be witness to a man's repentence (Confession). Unless he's really out to lunch, I'm quite sure you'll receive a negative answer. In which case then, how could such men turn around and say that those who are cut off from the Church have the "communication of the Holy Spirit" (to quote St.Basil's canons)?

This is not a question on the reception of converts without going through the full Baptismal rite - it's a question of where the Church in fact "is", since the confession of there being grace in a well established schism/heresy (particularly as some ecumenists state it - they've gone beyond speculation on the case of this or that person, but consider it a given for that religion) is a statement of that body's existance in the Church of Christ. That is blasphemy, and makes the martyrdom of true Orthodox Confessors vain.

Seraphim

Not my point at all. I simply responded to your request for evidence. Whether the cited statements prove heresy, or are just poorly (or cleverly) written, doesn't matter much to me. I provided them in response to your request to get your take on them.

But it is your assertion that the conclusions are incorrect. Others (like Fr. Romanides) criticize such statements (e.g. Balamand) because they apprehend that such conclusions are the "correct" ones, but that the implicated course of action is wrong.

But the Orthodox that I know express such ideas cautiously - certain about bodies where it is, but specifically declining to say where it is not. Apparently, there are others who are not so circumspect, but seem confident in pronouncing where the church is not. And this is a basic question of the thread ISTM. Who is out to lunch?

I think the topic "graceless heretics" and the "validity of the sacraments outside the Church of Christ" has been mixed up. Seraphim has said (and I think he is more in line in what the canons and the Church Fathers said) that the baptismal rite as performed in the Catholic Church and other mainline Protestant communities ARE valid. This is what St. Basil and the Council of Trullo is saying. Now the follow-up question is: "does this have grace?" which Augustine had said that "it may" or "may not". That is why Chrismation is administered to converts to correct the deficiency. Though Seraphim has said that we, Catholics, have VALID baptism there are certain factions in Orhodoxy that denies the validity of Catholic baptism.

I am into the chrismation thing but to repeat the rite of baptism is not in line with the tradition of the Universal Church (prior 1054).

As for the Synod of Arles, it was not accepted into the East because it answered the Carthaginian controversy of rebaptizing. Also, the East did not encountered Donatism. Though not accepted in the east, it is inline with the Council of Trullo's teachings.

ruel

Hi, Seraphim....

I wasn't saying that, when Pentecostals "pray over" each other, that's the equivalent of the Sacrament of the Sick. I was merely saying that this woman's apparently miraculous cure shows that Grace -- and the Spirit -- operate outside the bounds of your communion (and mine).

No time now to respond to the rest of your posts. Later, I hope.

Blessings,

ZT

Elexeie,

I'm not aware of any that reject this possibility (acceptance of the exterior validity of RC baptisms) - though I'm sure you'll find someone to represent any position, somewhere. The only possible example I can think of (and I'm not sure of this) is on Mt.Athos, where I've been told some of the monasteries do not accept converts received via chrismation, or "third rite" conversions.

I think the "maybe, maybe not" position is a possible one to take. However, the less irenic position is possible as well - both "fit" with the canons on this subject.

What cannot be accepted though, is anything above a cautious agnosticism - for to state, outright that "this non-Orthodox church has grace bearing mysteries" is to effectively state they are still organically part of the Church, in total. That is quite different than cautiously saying "there may be true mysteries there, there may be not". It is also a sentiment that I have never seen any evidence for in the Fathers.

However, what I think can be said with certainty, is that the canons take a posture based on what we "can know" - and what we can know, is that "person x" is not a member of the Orthodox Church, which is synonymous with Christ's Body. Thus, the operative (and not theoretical, which in many ways is actually irrelevent) position is a non-recognition of rites performed outside of the Church.

To speak with any more certainty, in a positive manner, is similar to presuming the salvation of those outside of the Church (particularly when there are no guarantees being Orthodox in name is going to save a man!), which also weighs against a very explicit dogmatic belief (that there is no salvation outside of the Holy Church.)

Thus, with regard to those stuck in schisms or heresies, there may be some wiggle room speculatively, but practically there is none. This is the primary problem with the many manifestations of the ecumenical movement - the outright affirmation of "Churchess" in other groups, confirmed by concelbrating acts which are prohibted by Holy Tradition for precisely that reason.

Seraphim


Seraphim

Seraphim:

I prayed for you today before the beautiful statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in our parish church.

May La Guadalupana -- who converted six million Aztecs and single-handedly stopped the satanic practice of human sacrifice -- bring you back to the Church Our Lord Himself founded upon Peter the Rock-Man.

Our Lord refuses her nothing, and she has pulled your file, kiddo!

Blessings,

ZT

Zoe,

I appreciate anyone's good will, however misguided. Thank-you for the kind thoughts.

btw., do you have any thoughts on what I wrote to you last, in reply to some of your concerns about Orthodox Christianity (particularly, your whole questioning on the grace issue, involving your Pentecostalist friend)?

Seraphim

Dearest Zoe Theodora.

(I still positively LOVE that name!)

I was going to try to stay out of this one, but none of you would stop!

So, here is my two cents:

Seraphim is I believe ROCOR (correct me if my assumption is wrong, dear brother Seraphim). They are considerably more 'hardline', and more 'fundamentalist' in their Orthodoxy than other jurisdictions here in the U.S. So, ecumenical relations arguments with Seraphim will be considerably different than they will be with other Orthodox.

As for this statement, I will agree AND disagree:

You will find no greater fan of the holiness of the current Pope than me, (even among my Roman Catholic brethren),

BUT,

The older brother (seat of Peter, first among equals) needs his younger siblings (apostolic seats of Eastern Patriarchs) just as much as they need him, in order for the family to be whole and functioning again!

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. And to both you and Seraphim, I would like to humbly offer you my favorite quote: "there is no schism in heaven!"....so, my beloved brethren in Christ, accept that your banter back and forth about who has and doesn't have grace, and to what degree, yada, yada, yada, is nothing more than mere mortal folly, and won't matter one bit before the awesome judgement seat.

Seraphim, you post so much, I'll have to get back over my lunch hour.

I've been following this thread since the beginning and finally thought I'd say something. In a "former life" I was a priest in the Old Roman Catholic Church. A priest friend in yet another jurisdiction and I were discussing validity of priestly orders and the Roman Catholic Church. The orders in my Church were recognized as valid by Rome, but my friend pointed out that even if Rome didn't accept them as valid my Church did and that was the important thing. So my response to those RCs here who seem to be so upset that some Orthodox Churches or hierarchs don't accept the validity of sacraments outside Orthodoxy, according to their definition of what it means to be Orthodox, what difference does it make? If your sacraments are valid in your eyes, who cares what someone else thinks? And as for my Orthodox brothers and sisters, if you are being true to your understanding of what it means to be Orthodox, then God bless you and strengthen you in your resolve. Who knows, maybe our Orthodox brothers and sisters are right? But then again, maybe our hardcore RC brothers and sisters are right? And who knows, even those of us in the middle could be right too? Don

You speak much wisdom, Alice!

Actually, through this thread, I have come to develop a strong respect for and sneaking fondness for Seraphim. I think he's about as wrong-headed as someone can be, but I respect his strength of conviction and fearlessness in stating his not-very-popular position.

"There is no schism in Heaven"--Amen! Of course, Seraphim doesn't think we Papists are gonna get there. But there will also be a few surprises in heaven, I'm thinkin'.



ZT

Dear Zoe and Alice,

There was a wonderful old Russian mystic who loved Roman Catholics . . .

In Russian, if you are RC, then you are a "KaTolik" but if you are Orthodox then you are referred to as a "KaFolik."

This mystic used to say that we are separated only by one letter . . .

Like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox were separated by one word to describe the union of the Natures in Christ for 1800 years . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,


What is the difference between KaTolic and KaFolik? Thanks!

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony,

A fascinating issue!

All Slavs had a problem with the Greek sound "Th."

They just couldn't pronounce it.

So Western Slavs, who were Roman Catholic, replaced it with the hard "T" sound.

Eastern Slavs, who were Orthodox, replaced it with the letter "F."

For example, in Russian and (literary) Ukrainian, it is "AriFmetika" and in Polish it is "AriTmetika."

It is "Toma" (for "Thomas") in Polish (and also Galician Ukrainian), but "Foma" in Russian and literary Ukrainian.

Both Latins and Orthodox referred to their Churches as the "Catholic Church."

But in OCS and in Russian, the word "KaTolik" referred to the Latin Slavs, and, by extension to all Roman Catholics of the west.

"KaFolik" referred to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

St Peter Mohyla in his catechism ALWAYS refers to the "Pravoslavno-KaFolicheskaya" Church and faith.

I've seen modern Ukrainian Orthodox liturgical translations cast it as "Pravoslavno-Kafolichna Tserkva" and they refer to Latin and Eastern Catholics as "Katolyky."

And you thought I led a boring existence!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the explanation!

I thought it mught have something to do with pronunciation. Once I visited an Orthodox parish for Vespers. After the service I went down stairs for some coffee. A Russian woman greeted me and said she hoped I joined the parish and then I could sing in the choir if I liked. She was very friendly until I said that would be nice, but I was a Catholic. When she heard that she got all flustered and ran away screaming to everyone else present, "He's a Katolic!! He's a Katolic!!"

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony,

Yes, some Orthodox have a "thing" about "Katoliky" .

But I doubt you would have gotten a better reception if you presented yourself as a "Kafolik."

When I attended the OCA ordination of my formerly Evangelical friend (it's dangerous to be my friend if you are a Protestant, you know . . .), I brought my Old Believer Lestovka.

The poor lady beside me thought I was a "priestless Old Believer" and tried to convince me to be accepted into a parish with a Priesthood . . .

I told her I was there, wasn't I?

Alex

Speaking of Pronunciations, I remember being corrected heartily in my old Greek Catholic parish when at the monthly Slavonic Liturgy, I sang "GOspodi Pomilui" in response to the Litanies. A baba took me aside and said in no uncertain terms "Sing HOspodi! The Other is the RUSSIAN way"

I went on saying "Gospodi" :p

I should have mentioned that the phrase 'there is no schism in heaven' is not mine. I read it elsewhere and it was coined by this forum's own Anthony Dragani.

What a Holy Spirit inspired phrase it is!

Forgive me everyone, and ESPECIALLY Anthony, if it seemed as if I was passing it off as my own.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Brian,

Actually, "Gospodi" is not only the Russian pronunciation - it is the incorrect Old Church Slavonic pronunciation of the "H" letter.

In the 17th century, bishops (including St Dmitri of Rostov) would frequently tell their flocks to stop pronouncing the hard "G" sound when saying "Hospodi" in Slavonic, even though the Muscovites (who only adopted the term "Rus'" or "Russian" at the time of Peter the Great), developed a knack for saying it as they say it today.

So "Hospodi" is the correct (because original) Church Slavonic pronunciation, although Russian Churches today would use only the incorrect "G."

The Ukrainian language has an upside down "L" for the soft "H" (which the Russians always pronounce as a hard "G")and then the same letter with an upwardly pointing accent on the top bar for the hard "G" sound.

That 33rd letter of the Ukrainian alphabet became a kind of "emblem" of Ukrainian cultural identity under the Muscovites (later "Russians").

And only Ukrainians would make a point of affirming their cultural/national identity by using it frequently.

Thus, St Herman of Alaska ONLY signed his name with the Ukrainian letter I described above rather than the Muscovite pronunciation of the Slavonic "H" letter.

Raised in Russian schools as he was, one can only conclude that his cultural identity was Ukrainian.

The term "Little Russian," although offensive to Ukies today, wasn't originally.

"Mikra Rossiya" in Greek meant "essential Rus'" or the "heart of Rus'" in the sense of "Russia Minor."

The Greeks used the terms "Asia Minor" and other geographic names in the same way.

The term "Rus'" came from the river near Kyiv called the "Ros" and defined the city-state of St Volodymyr's Kyivan Rus'.

Another view is that it came from Scandinavia, from the Swedish term "Ruotsi" and in Finnish to this day, "Ruotsi" means "the Swedes."

But the former view is affirmed by most all East Slavic scholars.

Alex

Actually, I don't speculate on this. It either leads to despair or presumption.

Seraphim

Dear Alice,

Actually that phrase first originated with the Ukrainian Orthodox Archbishop of Mogilev in Belarus of the 17th century - Saint George Konissky who said "our walls of separation don't lead all the way up to heaven."

Alex

Dear Alice and Don,

There is an old saying that virtue, power, is found in the middle. What you say makes sense to me. Thanks for saying it.

There is another old aphorism that says that the Church supplies what is missing. That I learned in the Latin Seminary. It sounds like a western version of economy as an activity of the Church.

I was surprised by what appeared to be grounds for further discussion in Seraphim's postion on at least one issue. If I understood what I read correctly, and that's a big if, he suggested something happened because of the correct form at the ordination of priests in the Catholic Church and that this might be what makes possible the reception by vesting of those Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy. Perhaps it's a way to engage in ecumenical discussion on the nature of the Sacramental "mark."

Has that been raised by theologians who are engaged in ecumenical discussions?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Sorry for resurrecting this terrible thread--but I feel obliged to respond to one of Seraphim Reeves' arguments from before.

He argued that the Catholic Church no longer sees itself as the one true Church, regarding the Orthodox as equally salvific, but that the Orthodox Church has never changed ITS mind on being the one true Church.

This is not true, however. Since the Second Vatican Council, our top hierarchs have used all manner of "ecumenical" maneuvers to try to effect a reunion with the East. This has led many to conclude that the Catholic Church regards the Orthodox churches as equally part of the One Church, etc.

Many high-ranking clerics (Cardinal Kasper, et al.) have even said so explicitly.

Nevertheless, these statements do NOT alter the constant, solemn, de fide teaching that the Catholic Church is the One and only Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles. Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

I leave it to others to figure out what all this ecumenism means. I know that Rome, in order to placate certain Orthodox hierarchs, has refused to take certain jurisdictions under its wing. This is a "practical", "prudential", and maybe "political" decision, however; it can't be used to overturn 20 centuries of constant teaching. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will bring good out of all this; most of it is very confusing for right now. We know that practical decisions are not protected by infallibility; there may be sin or other error involved.

All I know is that the Catholic Church's teaching regarding itself has NEVER changed; nor can it.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.

LatinTrad

Very true, Alex. It was also one letter (one little iota) that separated Arius from the orthodox doctine codified in the Nicene Creed.

Amen, LatinTrad!

This N.O. conservative-but-not-too-too-trad agrees 100%.

I keep hearing this argument from our Orthodox brethren--"The Catholic Church regards EOxy as equally salvific, etc., whereas EOxy alone still proclaims itself the One True Church."

It's like a mantra. But it's not true. It's extremely misleading.

I can see how certain ecumenical overtures could give the impression that we've given away the store. But we haven't. Dominus Iesus reiterates the time-honred Catholic teaching on this score. EOxy is very close to Catholicism; it "lacks little" for full communion. But "close" isn't the same as "indistinguishable" or "six of one, half a dozen of the other."

Blessings,

ZT

Latin Trad said:

Whoa there, Roman rider! What you say is simply not true.

The big-C "Catholic" church does indeed preach that the Church as a whole is one, but it does NOT, to the best of my knowledge, say that the big-o Orthodox are not a legitimate part of that Church.

The Church of Constantinople and other big-O Orthodox Churches are seen by your Roman prelates as fully small-c catholic, just as they see themselves as fully being small-o orthodox.

As for the Orthodox churches doing "violence to the Sacraments" becasue they are not in full communion with Rome, this is also Horse Hockey.

Read the pew books in almost any Latin Rite church in the 'States and you will see that under the Cannons of the Latin Church, members of Orthodox Churches are permitted to recieve communion in the Latin Rite Church (although they are encouraged to follow their own Church's position on the subject).

How on earth or in heavan can Rome permit communion of our Orthodox brothers and sisters if they have not been validly baptized? The fact of the matter is that both the big-O's and the big-C's recognize each other as having valid Sacraments.

Moreover, con-celebrated Crownings (Weddings in your terminology) in the Byzantine Rite are common where one partner is Orthodox and the other a Byzantine Rite Catholic. I guess, in your book, that would invalidate the marriage becasue an Orthodox and Catholic priest celebrating a Crowning together is doing violence to a Sacrament.

I'm sure these couples would be happy to hear that.

Yours,

halychanyn

Krylos,

1) I never said that their sacraments were invalid.

2) The pew books are not infallible. They have taken the prudential step of inviting Orthodox to communion, since there is so little that separates us. This does not mean that, objectively speaking, one can refuse union with Peter and still be Catholic.

3) The only one on this thread who has been throwing out accusations of invalid baptisms is Seraphim Reeves.

LatinTrad

Nevertheless, these statements do NOT alter the constant, solemn, de fide teaching that the Catholic Church is the One and only Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the other Apostles. Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

I leave it to others to figure out what all this ecumenism means.

And, LT, you do so with good reason, in my opinion. If this is really the teaching of the Roman Catholic church to this day, why doesn't it come out and say so even within the ecumenical dialogues? Instead, you've got different views being promoted, and various officials, including at least one Cardinal, seeming to support those views.

Since the Second Vatican Council, our top hierarchs have used all manner of "ecumenical" maneuvers to try to effect a reunion with the East. This has led many to conclude that the Catholic Church regards the Orthodox churches as equally part of the One Church, etc.

Many high-ranking clerics (Cardinal Kasper, et al.) have even said so explicitly.

Why use "ecumenical maneuvers" that can cause such confusion to the faithful of both the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Church in the interests of trying to effect a reunion? If what you are saying is the actual Roman Catholic teaching to this day, then why not just tell the truth openly and proudly? Each side should be able to tell the other what they truly believe, and then there can be talks. Instead, confusing "ecumenical maneuvers" are used to try and reunite with the East, and all the while Rome believes what you say it believes? I don't know about you, but I think that sounds a bit dishonest. What kind of union is this supposed to be, anyway? Something is not right in this picture, either with your presentation of Roman teaching, or with the Roman Catholic approach to reuniting with the Orthodox Church.

Above, you said:

Those who refuse communion with her refuse communion with Christ. Those who confect the Sacraments outside the Catholic Church do violence to the Sacraments.

What does this mean exactly? I understand the part about refusing communion with Christ, but what is the nature of the violence that is done to the Sacraments if confected outside of the Roman Catholic church? And again, if this is the Roman Catholic teaching, how come this isn't made clearer in dialogue? This is probably the first time I'm hearing this as a currently held and still official position.

I know that Rome, in order to placate certain Orthodox hierarchs, has refused to take certain jurisdictions under its wing. This is a "practical", "prudential", and maybe "political" decision, however; it can't be used to overturn 20 centuries of constant teaching. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will bring good out of all this; most of it is very confusing for right now. We know that practical decisions are not protected by infallibility; there may be sin or other error involved.

If what you're saying is the official teaching of Rome, then yes, there must be sin involved in not taking in certain jurisdictions (the Macedonians come to mind), and it's a very, very grievous sin, and causes scandal. Why would Rome deny a group of people entrance into the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, as it surely views itself to be (and, apparently, exclusively)? What reason is a good reason for refusing to a group of people who want to join her "communion with Christ"? What reason is a good reason for allowing a group of people to continue to confect, and thus do violence to, the Sacraments outside of the one true Church? Placating the Orthodox, who are viewed as outside the one true Church? Since when do the Orthodox take precedence over Christ?? With all due respect, something's not right here!

Perhaps I don't understand what "doing violence to the Sacraments" means (my earlier post asks for explanation, but I need to ask this question). Assuming that, whatever it means, to do violence to the Sacraments is a mortal sin, how can the Catholics take the "prudential step" of inviting people who probably are in mortal sin to Communion?

It is based upon the assumption that they are in ignorance of the fact that they are doing violence to the sacraments, and are therefore not culpable.

Whether it's a good idea or not is another question, because of the confusion that it causes.

I will say that in the Union with Rome the Eastern Catholics should serve as a warning to the Orthodox as to what can happen.Only in the past ten years or so have the Byzantine Ruthinians turned around to fight the uphill battle.And in several parishes they have a long way to go. Union doesnt mean that we have to follow the American Bishops and there banter.Look at the example of the Ukies.They do what they want.

Latin Trad says:

I respectfully disagree with your narrow use (and apparent understanding) of the phrase "union with Peter" and "Catholic."

You say that the ONLY way that one can belong to the "catholic" i.e. the universal Church is to be in full communion with the Church of Rome. If so, you take a much harde line than the Church of Rome itself.

As for "union with Peter," I believe that others with much more theological training than I have tried to set you straight on this issue, so I won't try. Still, to reiterate, there is a legitimate understanding of all of the apostles, including Peter, being present in the person of any bishop.

To take such a narrow view as to say that the Bishop of Rome is the only Peter is to doom any ecumenical discussion from the start.

I argee with Mor Ephrem. If the Latin Church teaches what you say it teaches, then ecumenism is just a bunch of lip-service to something that will never be.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear C4C:

Ukies doing what we want? In some ways yes and in some ways no. It depends upon the particular bishop and, frankly, upon the particular parish.

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Halychanyn:

As far as LatinTrad's views are concerned, I think they jibe with the Latin Code of Canons (more specifically Canon 330 through Canon 341) and, therefore, with those of the Roman Church.

AmdG

Mor Ephrem, everything you say here is absolutely correct.

These are EXACTLY the questions that traditional Catholics are asking today!!

All I can say is that my faith in the Church remains, despite the scandal of all this. Christ didn't guarantee that the practical/prudential measures taken by the leaders of His Church would be free from error. Thus, it is within the realm of possibility that these things should haapen. Great scandal has been committed.

We simply pray and hope.


LatinTrad

Dear Trad Lat,

I am puzzled by some things that you are saying or appear to be suggesting.

What exactly is the violence done to the Sacraments when they are confected by the Orthodox?

Even during more confrontational times, when the Orthodox were referred to as schmatic by Catholics, I do not recall any official teacher of the Church suggesting that the sacraments confected in the Orthodox Churches were somehow defective or that some form of violence was done. Perhaps you could explain what you are talking about when you suggest that violence is somehow done to the sacraments when they are confected in the Orthodox Church.

I'd appreciate that because it might help me make sense of the understanding that I built when studying in pre- and post Vatican II seminary in the light of what you have said. Even more, it might make it possible for me to understand what you are saying in the context of what the official teachers of the Catholic Church have said since the Council. Right now what you are saying does not make sense to me.

Here's why:

As I understand it, the Catholic Church does teach that the Church of Christ subsists most fully within the Catholic Church. It is not a new teaching as you point out. It is an honest statement of what the Catholic Church teaches and has taught. If I understand correctly, the Orthodox Church teaches the same thing.

For the Catholic Communion, that teaching does not preclude the reality of the existence of other Churches. It never has.

The Catholic Church has consistantly recognized that the Orthodox have a real priesthood and sacramental life that is as salvific as that in which which we participate. If that is so, how can they be outside of the Body of Christ?

The teaching that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, as I understand it, does not mean that others do not or cannot meet Christ in the sacraments of Churches which share a sacramental priesthood and the Eucharist.

If that is true, the mysteries of the Orthodox Church are indeed salvific in that in them Christ makes Himself present to the members of His Body through communion with their own Bishops. This is true even though their bishops do not share communion with the Roman Church.

Personally, I think that one makes a large theological leap when one speculates that those who refuse communion with the Roman Church refuse Christ as you have stated it.

Some Orthodox believers hold the belief about our sacraments that our sacraments are "graceless". Other Orthodox believers hold that our sacraments are salvific also. They are free do hold either belief.

For us there is no question.

If the Holy Father is to be believed we are now engaged in diaologue with Orthodox Churches to ascertain the truth which is expressed in our respective theological and doctrinal statements. This Pope seems to be eminently believable to me.

So, I find it difficult to characterize dialogue among the Churches as ecumenical maneuvers. Certainly the Pope and our hierarchy have not even hinted that that is the case.

It appears to me that what we are engaged in is trying to ascertain what theological and doctrinal reality is represented in our words and understandings.

I am sorry that you are confused. Most of us are more often that not, I'd suspect. But, I hope that you will be able to come to trust that the Spirit is indeed working even in these confusing times in the Holy Father and the Hierarchy and the body of believers of all of the Churches through which He presents Himself to us sacramentally.

Politics and prudential judgements are within His pervue. In His time, He will grant us the wisdom to know what He would have us all know.

Jesus asked His Father that His followers be one. May that prayer be furthered by the love expressed in our words to those with whom we disagree so that we do not get in His way.
The Spirit will bring us to union in Jesus.

Christ has not left us orphans. As Jesus said and John Paul II has repeated over and over, "Be not afraid." Trust.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

How so? That's actually the teaching of the Church. And please note that LatinTrad, like the Church, did say "objectively" when re-stating this teaching.

Of course, the Church acknowledges that subjectively, a person may not have enough information, or be able to understand, the teaching; in that case he or she is judged based on what they do know and understand.

(And I suspect 99.9% of those who make it to Heaven will be "invincibly ignorant" in some area or other - which is where the grace and mercy of God come in. Thank God! )

So, the teaching of the Roman Church is that highly trained theologians who, according to y'all, should know better but nonetheless choose not to enter into full communion with Rome are precluded from "making it"?

If that's so, then ecumenism is as good as dead.

Yours,

halychanyn

This seems to be going in one big circle for me at least. But I have to remember that more than one group is represented here.I have a good question for the Latins,what does it mean tobe in communion? And for the Byzantines what does it mean to you?The only time that it is ever brought up in my parish is when somone tries to enforce some Latinazations on us and then drags the Pope into it saying that we are not loyal to the Catholic church.We comprise less than one percent of the Catholic population of the U.S. and we take a beating from our fellow churches in an almost never ending assault. Just the other day I was told that the only Chatachism that we have is that of the Roman church and ours was wrong.But I dont blame the Laiety for this because thats how most of them grew up and thats what they know.Its funny how many Romans we have in our churches because of all the liberals in their church.And if they had one ounce of the moxie of the Latin posters on this fourm they would go back and fight for their church.It is apparent to me that Ecumenism is dead and what remains is a twisted idea.I have seen so many educated post on this thread yet when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the subject it sounds like someone will impose their will on the other.Poor sinner chad

Who said this? I'm puzzled!

Lumen Gentium, the VCII Decree on Ecumenism, and Dominus Iesus all make very clear that salvation is possible outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church.

Yes, even for "highly trained theologians."

Of course, if one willfully and obdurately refuses to enter the Catholic Church even though one knows (or strongly suspects) she is the True Church, then one's salvation is in jeopardy. It's all a matter of the will--is obduracy involved? Or not? Only Jesus knows the heart, so only He knows, finally, who is rejecting the Church out of ignorance or misconception and who is rejecting her out of willful, hardened obduracy. IOW, only He knows who is culpable and who isn't.

This is classic Catholic Church Teaching, clearly restated in the Decree on Ecumenism.

It is still way more flexible than the Orthodox view...so where's the problem?

Scratching head here....

ZT

P.S. C4C, I'm sorry those nasty Latins give y'all such a hard time. They just don't know any better!

Dear ZT:

Well, if the analysis is a subjective vs. objective one, then it would seem to be the position of the Church of Rome that one who is trained in Christian theology should, of course, come to the conclusion that the only path to salvation is through communion with Rome.

I will leave with this. I, personally, cannot buy that the kind and merciful God we all purport to preach and believe in gives a rat's kiester whether we are in communion with Rome or not.

I find that the teachings of the Church of Rome as articulated above are left-overs from the days when the Church used scare tactics of eternal damnation to keep the peasantry in line.

Well, guess what, we ain't ignorant dirt farmers anymore. The clergy is no longer among the few educated people around.

This is the 21st Century - a time where people are TURNED OFF by such statements as "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell." Heck, this stuff was way past its usefulness years ago. This has nothing to do with faith or dogma, eiether. It is politics, pure and simple.

It is politics that turned faithful apostolic Christians to come up with accusations of doing "violence" to the Sacraments by celebrating them without being in full communion with Rome. PUHLEEZE!

It is politics that led the Crusaders to sack Constantinople in the name of the Pope.

It is politics that allows the word "schismatic" to remain in the lexicon of our everyday ecclesiastical vocabulary.

I have said it above, and will say it again. If the "traditional Catholics" are questioning why Rome would even consider discussing unity with the Orthodox where they are not apparently willing to succumb to Rome's will, then ecumenism is truly dead.

Patriarch Lubomyr has said on many occasions that unity will happen when the people want it to happen. From what I see here, people want it only on their terms - and that's as good as not wanting it.

My soapbox is probably in splinters by now, so I just now shut up and brace myself.

Yours,

halychanyn

Halychanyn, I respectfully submit that this post is a mixture of ungrounded, a priori assumptions (like the first paragraph quoted above) and historical chauvenism.

If you think modern man is oh-so-enlightened compared to his predecessors, I would advise you to look at the world around you. In what area are we richer than the "dirt farmers" you mention? In material goods and pleasures. In what area were they richer than we? In the spirit. Take your pick. At least our ancestors had the HUMILITY to submit their wills to Christ (unlike we moderns). We are so good at rationalizing nonsense these days.

The comment about the sack of Constantinople is not appreciated. I respectfully remind you that the Pope of Rome EXCOMMUNICATED every single one of those Venetians, who fouled the name of "Crusader" by attacking a Christian city, committing sacriledge upon sacriledge in the process. Don't try to pin that one on the Pope or on the Faith.


LatinTrad

Gosh, who said "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell"?

Even Seraphim Reeves hasn't gone quite that far.

If you knowingly and obdurately reject Christ's Body, the Church, then you put your salvation in jeopardy. But if you reject Christ's True Church in ignorance--non-culpably--that's an entirely different matter. This has been the constant teaching of the Church from her earliest days. In both East and West.

"He has not God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother." That's the patristic view--which, if anything, was rather more severe than ours.

I still don't get it. Why blast us Latins for holding a view far less severe than that of the Orthodox? At least be consistent and blast the Orthodox, too!

Blessings,

ZT

Dear All,

I've been reflecting on what is happening in this thread.

The discussion above seems to exclude a major player. God. Is faith a free gift from God or something that we can achieve by act of our intellect or act of our will? One can achieve an intellectual decision about where religious truth exists. That does not mean that one is gifted with the faith to accept it. Only God can know if He has granted that gift or not.

I sincerely hope that Ecumenicism is not dead, certainly not based on what is puported to be the whole teaching of the Catholic Church in this thread. It seem to me that the positions that are ascribed to the Catholic Church here are one dimensional. There are many nuances of theological explanation and reflections on the the meaning of what are simple doctrinal statements without their doctrinal context that are not being presented. I cannot speak about the postions that are ascribed to the Orthodox church.

It seems to me that making judgements about the viability of ecumenical efforts based on the explanation of doctrine by individual posters is not a sensible action. The positions taken by posters, myself included, on a forum such as this, are just that, postitions taken by posters on a welcoming and open forum.

It seems to me that we will know that ecumenical work is dead when the Churches as a whole decide that it is dead. Our Churches' teachers along with the rest of the members of our Churches have yet to make that judgement.

Given the prayer of Jesus that His followers be one in Him, I pray that that never happens.

The Spirit moves as He wills. He is not bound by our understandings or our explanations or our anticipations about how He should act.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

I would still be interested in hearing more about the nature of the violence that is done to the Sacraments by celebrating them when not in communion with Rome.

Dearest Inawe:

What do you mean by "one dimensional"? We are merely citing Lumen Gentium and the Decree on Ecumenism. This is not some "purported" teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you don't believe me, please read the documents in question. They are readily available on the internet.

Of course we recognize that the Spirit blows where He wills. That is why we don't take a hard-line position like Seraphim Reeves'.

I am genuinely baffled. As Latin Trad has pointed out, it is Seraphim (snd his ROCOR cohorts) who take the very hard-line view re "extra ecclesiam [Orthodoxam in his case] nulla salus." Yet our fellow Catholics justify, rationalize, and explain away Seraphim's much more severe stance while lambasting Latin Trad's and my much less severe stance. What is wrong with this picture?



ZT

Dear Zoe,

Thanks for your response.

I have read both documents. The teaching contained in them is not limited to the pieces of it that are presented here. What has been cited here are snipets of Catholic teaching taken out of context, a context that is quite nuanced. They are presented without the theological and doctrinal background that make them more comprehensible. That is what I mean by one dimensional.

I am puzzled as to how one can conclude that the documents that have been cited claim that the Orthodox are not part of the Mystical Body of Christ that is the Church. In the context of the doctrine of the Mystical Body and the importance of sacramental actions in the life of the Body of Christ, I find it difficult to understand how is it possible to have Eucharist and not be part of Christ's Body which offers the renewal of the Sacrifice to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. It makes no sense to me to not present the docrinal context within which the meanings of the statements cited should, it seems to me, be examined. It is within this context that the subtle theological shades which enrich the meaning of the statement are highlighted.

The Orthodox lack little says Cardinal Ratzinger. Does the little that they lack mean that up to the point of the little that they lack, the Church of Christ does not subsist in them? Could it not be argued that it does subsist there up to the point where there is that little lack? Is that not at least a plausible context within which to understand the teaching?

Simply to present the quotes cited earlier ignores the much that the Orthodox do have. It seems to me that a distorted image of the riches of Catholic teaching about the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is shared with Orthodox and lurkers who are not memebers of Apostolic Churches.

Through discussion, is it not possible that we will at some future time find that we are one in what we know to be real, that we together no longer see that little lack? Can that not be inferred from in the words of Dominus Jesus? Is it not suggested in the Pope's request that the Orthodox join us in finding a way that will enable the Pope to exercise his ministry among the Churches without negating the authentic teaching of the Churches?

Something similar happened recently in the agreements between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Church of Rome. For a long time it was taught that the Churches believed different things. In the agreement it was recognized that the Chruches believed the same thing. The problem was semantic and not doctrinal.

Zoe, I am not justifying or rationalizing or explaining away any one's stance. I believe that there is a much richer teaching about the relationship of various Churches in the Body of Christ than is suggested by the snippets. I am concerned that the wider Tradition of theCatholic Church is lost when snippets of our teaching are presented as the whole teaching of the Church.

I believe that this picture is distorted. It does not represent Catholic teaching within the context of all of its riches. The snippet teaching as cited in this thread is like a piece of a stained glass window. Is it real? Yes. Does it stand by itself? No. Can it be understood without examining it in its relationship to other pieces of the window or the window as a whole? I don't think so.

The work of ecumenicism, it seems to me, is at least to honestly look at and try to interpret what we hold to be true as a beginning step to reunion. This requires on our part that we look at the pieces of the window; but it also requires that we look at the piece in the context of the other pieces in window and how they reflect on each other and thus amplify the color we see. It is even more important that we look at the piece in the context of the window as a whole.

I mean no offense to you or Trad Lat or Seraphim or anyone else. The beauty of the Truth and its riches are present in the teaching of the Churches. I think that it is important that we look at the whole as well as its parts and study the interplay of the different lights that help us to see what is sometimes hidden by concentrating only on one part.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

If I may make a humble observation. It seems that the same old arguments continue to go round and round with no one giving any ground. And it's only right that this be so if all that matters are theological opinions.

I love a good argument as well as the next person, but I am left wondering that when the representatives from the Catholic and Orthodox churches come together do they really seek the Spirit to change hearts to follow truth no matter where it leads or do they take the Spirit for granted relying upon their honored positions instead.

Maybe if all, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, theologians and laity spent as much time in prayer for true change of heart we would see true communion truly restored once again. Am I being overly optimistic.

Terry

Dear ZT:

Lest you forget, when I blast Vatican teachings on a certain subject, I am blasting, in effect, my own Church that goes along with it. If that's wrong, then I'm not sure I want to be right.

One could blast the big-O Orthodox as well as you are absolutely correct that they are, in some ways, "worse" than the big-C Catholics. Nor do I try and explain away the views expressed by Mr. Seraphim. For the record, I strongly disagree with what he has said and wish that our brothers the Orthodox could find it in their heart to soften their stance vis a vis us big-c Catholics.

Still, the topic of this thread was put in Catholic terms by refering to Orthodox schismatics.

As for the "if you're not one of us, you're going to hell" bit, how else can one interpret a teaching that says that anyone who subjectively rejects communion with Rome cannot be saved?

Yours,

halychanyn

Dear Latin Trad:

You asked:

How 'bout the fact that we can read, write and analyze for ourselves? True the secular world around us has become materialistic and has lost much of its soul. It is also true that people like you and I are able to achieve higher learning and intelligently question (not reject, but question) what both the Church and, for that matter the State puts before us. With the good came the bad and we, as a species, are still on The Way.


You also said:

I disagree. They submitted their wills to the Church and all its well-documented corrpution and excesses during the Middle Ages. I submit that's not the same thing - whatever time one lives in. History (viewed through our 21st Century lens, I will remind you) shows that the will of the Church is not always the will of Christ. I will not recount them for fear of insulting anyone, but you know what I mean.

Yours,

halychanyn

Excellent post, Inawe. And I would also point to what another decree from the Council, Unitatis Redingtegratio states about the "separated" Orthodox Churches (verbatum as per an official Vatican English translation):
I wish Roman Catholics would better study the entirety of their Church's teachings, not just a few things here or there that prop up their own personal vision of what they think the Church should be.

I think what Cardinal Ratizinger refers to as "little" is joint communio in sacris. Everything else seems to be in place, including the mutual removal of the excommunications of 1054 by Paul VI and Athenogoras in 1965.

Speaking for myself, I've been studying the customs of my Eastern brethern for over a year now and find the spirituality very illuminating and meaningful. I have added many eastern prayers to my daily use of the Liturgy of the Hours and can say I have been recharged.

Of course I need to acknowledge my Ukrainian Bro Alex for some direction .

Pokoj,
james

But when did I say that? Or Latin Trad either, for that matter?

I haven't read every post in detail but I don't remember having seen anyone say that if you "subjectively reject communion with Rome," you're doomed. We-uns are not Feeneyites!

Personally, I'm just saying what Lumen Gentium says: that baptized Christians outside the Church's visible bounds belong to her in a partial, imperfect way; that those now living in "heretical and/or schismatic" communions cannot be charged with the sins of heresy and/or schism committed by their communions' founders; that Grace exists outside the Church's visible bounds; that non-Catholics can be saved; BUT that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the True Church and yet obdurately refuses to enter her cannot be saved.

We're talking here about a very hardened heart. That's not the same as someone rejecting the Church out of ignorance, semi-ignorance, misconception, etc.

Personally, I believe a lot of Jewish people will not be held personally accountable for rejecting Christ and the Church...to the extent that they've suffered persecution at the hands of so-called "Christians." Anti-semitism puts a huge roadblock in the way of a Jew considering Christianity. It's hard to get over that hurt, to be healed of those scars. And it's really hard not to associate "Christian" anti-semitism with Christ.

Jesus understands this. We are judged according to our lights. The more advantages we have in hearing and accepting the Gospel, the more severely we'll be judged for blocking our ears and rejecting it. But conversely, the fewer advantages we have -- the less "light" we have -- the more leniently we'll be judged, IMHO. "To whom much is given, of him much will be expected." And the converse is also true.

Only Jesus knows how culpable any particular person is in his/her rejection of the Church. Only Jesus knows about mitigating factors such as: past bad experiences with Catholics; invincible ignorance; deep, blinding prejudice passed down by one's family; whatever.

Only Jesus knows. And He ain't tellin'!

I'll leave it in His hands. But I also won't take any chances with the souls of those I hold dear. I'll pray, at least, that all men and women will come to know Christ Jesus in His fullness, in the One Church He founded--the Catholic Church.

Does that make any sense?

Blessings,

ZT

Inawe,

At best, what can be said is that heterodox rites which have maintained the proper outward "form", happen. That is to say, if someone goes to say, an RC priest, and is baptized by him, that is a historical, real event in time.

I'm unaware of any knowledge the Church possesses, regarding what may happen "invisibly" during such a rite. What is known, is that the Church believes Baptism to be an act of the Church - as such, it cannot exist outside of Her. Only the Body of Christ (the Church) can graft others into Herself.

What is also a fact, is that the Church of Christ has in times past (in fact, such appears to have been normative throughout the Christian west) received converts from schisms and heretical bodies (which maintained the proper outward form of baptism) without "re" baptizing them.

These two "seemingly" contradictory sets of data are not unreconcilable - for when a convert is received without "re" baptism, the understanding is that the Church is bestowing spiritual content to a previous, historical act. This is not (as some now teach) a retroactive validation of the past; nor is it an acknowledgement of some previous grace filled mystery (as others wrongly teach). Rather, it is the completion (which only the Church can give) to a form - the filling of an empty (if proper) vessel.

Seraphim

Zoe,

I think the problem is that you and I are speaking from different paradigms.

I agree, that the official RC teaching is not really (from it's own understanding) "Catholicism, Orthodoxy...same thing."

However, from where I'm looking at this, there is nothing to be gained in the order of salvation by union with the RCC. That is why I'm insisting that the current RC view is modified branch-theory; the basic recognition that the Body of Christ does not equal the RCC - simply that the Papacy is a God appointed organ for unity which we ought to be friendly with, and agree with. However, given the affirmation of life giving mysteries in Orthodoxy by the RCC, and a repudiation of attempts to convert Orthodox Christians to Catholicism, I don't see what value this "bestest" status for those who are "in communion with Rome" really amounts to. This is quite beside the fact that I believe the RCC to officially endorse heresy, and to itself be a schism.

From an Orthodox p.o.v. this makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "partial Gospel" which engenders a "partial church" or something along those lines. If one genuinely has the apostolic succession (which is more than the simple laying on of hands), and the true faith, then they are part of the Church - and it becomes a duty of charity to recognize such local Churches, and have fraternal relations/communion with them. While these relations can be temporarily interuppted for various reasons (personal sins, geographical/political factors, etc.), such temporary problems do not destroy the essential unity of the Church.

Thus, if the Orthodox are materially heretics and schismatics (though that may not be said anymore, from what I'm gathering from the RCC's more conservative elements this seems to be the case), it makes no sense to an Orthodox Christian that they are still recognized as part of the Body of Christ.

This is what I meant by "equality" - for there can be no "half grace" or "semi-Churchness"; there is the life of the Holy Spirit, the means of salvation, and standing as Christ's Body... or there is simply a human institution with only exoteric "Church" qualities...the form, but not the content.

It's no secret that Rome still regards itself as the visible head of the Church - or that they speak in terms of preserving the "fullness" of the faith. But such affirmations (once again, from an Orthodox p.o.v.) become meaningless, if they have no real consequences in the order of salvation. Simply put, Orthodox Christians are doing fine as they are.

Seraphim

This is the kind of confusion that's created when people like Cardinal Kasper misrepresent Catholic teaching.

LatinTrad

Dear Diak,

Thank you for your kind words about my previous posting. I appreciate them.

Steve

Dear Seraphim,

Thank you for your response to my comments. I appreciate them.

I must suggest that some of the terminology that you choose to use when speaking of our Liturgical and Sacramental Rites might be a bit off-putting. But, your ideas are of interest and still seem to me to point to an approach which might be useful to the Churches as they continue Ecumenical Dialogue.

I found this aspect of your posting to be relevant:

"These two "seemingly" contradictory sets of data are not unreconcilable - for when a convert is received without "re" baptism, the understanding is that the Church is bestowing spiritual content to a previous, historical act."

Of course, Catholics understand the historical act to be a Sacramental Rite which bestows "spiritual content" at the time of the act. As far as I know, it has been consistant teaching among us that the Rites of the Orthodox Churches also bestow "spiritual content" at the time of the act.

If I understand correctly, other Orthodox posters have said that the Orthodox Church officially is sure of what happens in Orthodox Rites. They said that the Orthodox Church officially is not sure of what happens in Rites celebrated in other Churches with which it is not in communion.

So it seems quite logical for Catholic believers to know what they know from the teaching of the Churches in our communion. It is also quite logical for Orthodox believers to assert that they do not know what they do not know because the Churches of your Comunion have not taught otherwise.

Given that, am I correct in assuming that the positions that you have presented when you said this:

"This is not (as some now teach) a retroactive validation of the past; nor is it an acknowledgement of some previous grace filled mystery (as others wrongly teach). Rather, it is the completion (which only the Church can give) to a form - the filling of an empty (if proper) vessel."

are opinions that you are denying in still another opinion?

I am asking because I want to be sure that I have understood correctly.

I wonder if what you have said about the historical act and bestowing spiritual content on it raises the possibility that there are other dimensions to the Orthodox teachings that have not been presented in this discussion. Perhaps there are teachings that could contribute insight about the ontological and historical effects of sacraments that are performed in the historical acts that you talk about above?

If so, they are not now part of the discussion in this thread. Would it be fair to think that they would enrich the discussion by adding many dimensions besides the one which you are presenting in the discussion?

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve

Posted by Latin Trad:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Seraphim Reeves:


It's no secret that Rome still regards itself as the visible head of the Church - or that they speak in terms of preserving the "fullness" of the faith. But such affirmations (once again, from an Orthodox p.o.v.) become meaningless, if they have no real consequences in the order of salvation. Simply put, Orthodox Christians are doing fine as they are.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the kind of confusion that's created when people like Cardinal Kasper misrepresent Catholic teaching."


Dear Latin Trad,

I read your last posting with interest. It stirred up some thoughts and some questions. I hope that you will not find them inappropriate.

It occurred to me that confusion is not always a bad thing. It can be a sign of a mind working to assimilate something new, especially something which causes a reordering of the knowledge that the mind has already organized. We humans seem to dislike that process and some do almost anything to resist that kind of challenge. After all, it requires effort that will result in change in the order of things as we know them.

Perhaps the confusion that you are talking about here is not in the sending of Catholic teaching on the part of an official Catholic Teacher. Could it not be possible that the person receiving the teaching is resisting the challenge or has not yet fit that teaching into old knowledge that will be changed by it is the source of the confusion?

To assert that either Catholics or Orthodox are o.k. without being the one Church that we both know that Christ wants us to be seems to me, at best, an example of invincible ignorance. To believe that Jesus has prayed that we all be one and to fail to act on it surely has consequences on the level of salvation.

Aren't the extensive ecumenical efforts of members of the Orthodox and Catholic Communions of Churches a sign that they have heard His prayer. They seem to believe that there are serious consequences to not working to achieve it.

For example, our leaders have repeatedly pointed to the scandal that is caused among unbelievers by our divisions and mistreatment of eachother. Are there not cases where persons find it more difficult to believe in Christianity, and even Christ, because of our divisions? Mahatma Ghandi said that this was so, if memory serves me correctly.

Surely that is a real consequence in the order of salvation for both Catholics and Orthodox. There is a need on the order of salvation for us to work to understand the truth that the Churches teach us. It is a real need!

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve